The views expressed by this thread are not the official views of TeamLiquid.net and its staff. This is a forum thread and not official news.
A short history of Activision Blizzard or how B.Net 2.0 came to be
July 2007 – July 2008: Activision and Blizzard merge in an 18 billion $ deal into Activision Blizzard, with Activision as the dominant partner. They get to appoint “Robert A. Kotick” as the new CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of the Holding company while Vivendi remains majority shareholder with 52%.
Get a room When Mike Morhaime first met Kotick, he was looking for a low-key setting to avoid sparking the sort of chatter that often emerges when high-profile business leaders meet in public.
Morhaime, then the chief executive of Blizzard, chose a steakhouse near his company's Irvine, Calif., headquarters. But he ended up booking a large banquet room by mistake, leaving the two alone and rather conspicuous for the nearly four hours during which they contemplated the potential of a merger creating a new leader in the video-game business -- a combination that would rival Electronic Arts in size and market position.
"We wanted to keep it low-key, which was pretty hard to do in this huge room with just the two of us there," Morhaime recalled with a laugh.
Kotick had long eyed Blizzard, a unit of French conglomerate Vivendi, which had become the top player in the market for PC-based games with its smash hit "World of Warcraft."
Activision had its own string of blockbusters, including the World War II action game "Call of Duty" and the megahit "Guitar Hero," which has sold more than 24 million units.
According to Morhaime, that first meeting sold him on the idea of the merger and on Kotick, who wound up running the combined company when the deal was consummated in July of this year.
"Bobby is a pretty unique guy when it comes to business strategy," Morhaime said. "He's exceptionally quick. Very smart. He's always open to listening and learning. And he asks a lot of really good questions."
Plus, Morhaime added, "He knows everybody."
March 06, 2008: Even before the actual deal was finally approved by every party involved, Kotick started dreaming aloud of what could be done with StarCraft 2 and the new Battle.Net: http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/51641
Activision CEO Robert Kotick has briefly mentioned his company's plans for maximizing profit from Blizzard's upcoming PC strategy sequel StarCraft II.
"On the Blizzard side, [we need to] really be figuring out things like the StarCraft business model for the future, with in-game advertising and sponsorship, [which have] really not been something that has moved the dial for anybody in the videogame industry, but that we think presents tremendous opportunity for the future," said Kotick, according to Next-Gen.
"[Blizzard] has been thinking about how StarCraft, because it is a short-session experience, can actually be the model for in-game advertising and sponsorship and tournament play and ladder play for the future."
2007-2010+: In the meantime Blizzard introduces more and more “pay-for” features to World of Warcraft, like the “Name Change” for 10$, “Character Re-Customization” for 15$, the “Character Transfer” for 25$, “Faction Change” for 30$, Blizzard Mobile is getting made for phone sounds and pictures: http://mobile.blizzard.com/ , a mount for 25$, several pets, additional protection with the Blizzard Authenticator, so you’ll be safer against hackers for 6.50$ instead of for free or the latest, an Internet interface for the World of Warcraft AH called the “Remote Auction House” as a “Subscription-based service” for cash (2.99$/month).
How much autonomy is Blizzard going to retain – and is there scope to use Activison and Vivendi’s licences within that division?
Blizzard has established the most successful business in all of video games. It’s not like we need to go there and fix something. Blizzard will continue to operate as they have done in the past – fairly independently. They have a top notch management and development team and we have a very high degree of confidence that they know how to run the business and a track record to prove it. In addition, they have an extraordinarily strong product pipeline, with Starcraft, Wrath of the Litch King and Diablo 3. It’s tremendous, and it would be a big mistake for us to distract them with new ideas. But there are some opportunities we will be exploring, especially relating to their expertise in Asia. If you consider that Guitar Hero is not in Asia yet and that the only way to create a business there is figuring out ways to work in internet cafes, etc., we hope to benefit from their expertise.
Is there a message you want to send the European staff of Activision and Vivendi about their future prospects? Are you planning to reduce headcounts at these HQs?
We don’t have a formal plan at this point. With every merger, there is overlap and redundancy, and so the same will be the case here. Of course, we’re going to go to our customers with one face. We obviously don’t need two sales forces. There will be overlap that we will have to address. Having said that, if you look at our industry, it’s rapidly growing – last year it grew 30 per cent. And we’ve been growing more than three times that speed. In fact, over time I fully expect our headcount to grow. But in the short term we will exterminate some of our overlap through redundancy – but we will treat people fairly and respectfully in that process.
October 10, 2008: Only 3 months later, Blizzard decides that StarCraft II shall become a Trilogy, with its 3 parts “Wings of Liberty”, “Heart of the Swarm” and “Legacy of the Void” being sold separately: http://kotaku.com/5061980/starcraft-ii-single-player-is-a-trilogy
For the people that don't know it yet, the 3 parts will function similar to WarCraft 3/TFT and StarCraft/Brood War for the multiplayer part e.g. they add new units and buildings and split the community between people owning them or not: http://eu.starcraft2.com/faq.xml
How will the expansion sets impact multiplayer gameplay?
The expansion sets will add new content to each race for use in multiplayer matches. This could include additions such as new units, abilities, and structures, along with new maps and Battle.net updates.
If I buy StarCraft II but don't buy any of the expansion sets, will I still be able to play online?
Yes. This will work similarly to Warcraft III and the original StarCraft, which maintained separate online gaming lobbies and ladders for expansion set players and players with the base Warcraft III or StarCraft.
November 6, 2008: One can see actual changes in the corporate policy relatively early, Activision Blizzard drops titles like Brütal Legend, Ghostbusters, Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena, WET and a few others, because they do not fit the new business model. Shortly after that, SIERRA Entertainment also gets shut down with an impending sale of the company remaining.
With respect to the franchises that don’t have the potential to be exploited every year across every platform, with clear sequel potential that can meet our objectives of, over time, becoming $100 million-plus franchises, that’s a strategy that has worked very well for us.
September 16, 2008: Soon after, Kotick even believes, that with Activision Blizzard now being so big, he seems to have the right to dictate future consoles hardware design:
"Now that we have the weight of being the largest payer of royalties to the first-parties of any third-party company, I definitely see us as starting to influence hardware design, and they're thinking about the evolution of the next generation of hardware," said Robert Kotick, Activision CEO, speaking to industry analysts.
As reported by GamePolitics, Valve has filed suit this week in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington, claiming that Activision declined to pay out the whole award. Specifically, the Half-Life 2 developer claimed that the Guitar Hero publisher is withholding some $424,000 of the payment, saying that it previously overpaid royalties to the studio. Valve also said that Activision threatened to file a separate suit seeking that aforementioned overpayment money if the publisher's short-changing on the arbitration award was challenged in court.
This is one of many lawsuits against or initiated by Activision in dispute with (former) business partners and employees… for more examples see the bottom of the linked GameSpot article above, which would ultimately later lead to the claim that Kotick would “prefer to pay his lawyers instead of his employees”.
June 4, 2009: Just shortly after, Activision decides to sue “Double Fine” (the developers of Brütal Legend, a game they dropped themselves almost a year ago and was now being published by EA). After the title got high recognition at that year’s E3 Activision wants to prevent the release of the game and claims the developers missed important deadlines and did not manage to complete the game on time. They also claim they never handed over the contract for it in the first place. It ended with a settlement. http://www.joystiq.com/2009/06/04/activision-sues-double-fine-over-brutal-legend/
"I'm getting concerned about Sony; the PlayStation 3 is losing a bit of momentum and they don't make it easy for me to support the platform," Kotick told the UK Times Online, adding that the return on investment is "better" on the Wii and Xbox 360.
"They have to cut the price, because if they don't, the attach rates [the number of games each console owner buys] are likely to slow," said Kotick. "If we are being realistic, we might have to stop supporting Sony."
"When we look at 2010 and 2011, we might want to consider if we support the console," he said -- and also included the PSP as an area to re-examine.
June 28, 2009: A few more details of the new Battle.Net 2.0 get out, for instance that StarCraft II and Diablo III will not offer a LAN-mode anymore (so everyone that wants to play with you, including friends and family HAS to buy a copy of the game and all Add-Ons and give Blizzard them $$) and that it might contain a few “monetized features” and micro transactions.
Clarification for the above statement: StarCraft I, WarCraft II and Diablo had a feature called "Spawn installation", with which you could legally install the same game with the same CD-Key on a friends or family members PC, with the restriction that the SinglePlayer couldn't be played from the "Spawn version" and they could only join Multiplayer games, you, with the Original CD-Key and Installation were in. While the feature wasn't there specifically for WarCraft III, LAN games with the same CD-Key were still possible, this helped people try out the game with friends and buy it if they liked it, I personally know of at least 3 sales by friends attributed to this feature. The new version of B.Net 2.0 works in such a way, that even when living under the same roof and another person only wanting to try the game or play with you casually, they still have to own a full second copy of the game + all Add-On keys to be able to do this.
So what's Battle.net all about and how is it different?
The new Battle.net will completely revolutionise the current version, but Blizzard is still looking to making this experience free for anyone buying StarCraft II or future games that use Battle.net. One idea which has been discussed in different iterations is microtransactions, meaning the service is free, but added value services like starting a custom tournament, league, or the like would cost a small amount of money.
He mentioned WoW as an example, where "value added services" like server transfers are paid for, but "you can get the full experience of Battle.net with all the features just from buying the box."
Blizzard wants to foster the best mod community in existence, and to that ends they've unveiled plans to single out premium custom-created maps for sales on a StarCraft 2 marketplace. Maps will be split into two categories - normal and premium - with the former free and the latter for sale, with a portion of the proceeds going to the map's creators. Blizzard hopes this will lead to more choice for StarCraft 2 players, and more innovative and creative custom maps fueled by the potential financial rewards.
User Content. "User Content" means any communications, images, sounds, and all the material and information that you upload or transmit through a Game client or the Service, or that other users upload or transmit, including without limitation any chat text. You hereby grant Blizzard a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, paid-up, non-exclusive, license, including the right to sublicense to third parties, and right to reproduce, fix, adapt, modify, translate, reformat, create derivative works from, manufacture, introduce into circulation, publish, distribute, sell, license, sublicense, transfer, rent, lease, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, or provide access to electronically, broadcast, communicate to the public by telecommunication, display, perform, enter into computer memory, and use and practice such User Content as well as all modified and derivative works thereof. To the extent permitted by applicable laws, you hereby waive any moral rights you may have in any User Content.
Content Screening and Disclosure. We do not, and cannot, pre-screen or monitor all User Content. However, our representatives may monitor and/or record your communications (including without limitation chat text) when you are using the Service or playing a Game, and you hereby provide your irrevocable consent to such monitoring and recording. You acknowledge and agree that you have no expectation of privacy concerning the transmission of any User Content, including without limitation chat text or voice communications. We do not assume any responsibility or liability for User Content that is generated by users. We have the right, but not the obligation, in our sole discretion to edit, refuse to post, or remove any User Content. WE ALSO RESERVE THE RIGHT, AT ALL TIMES AND IN OUR SOLE DISCRETION, TO DISCLOSE ANY USER CONTENT AND OTHER INFORMATION (INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION CHAT TEXT, VOICE COMMUNICATIONS, IP ADDRESSES, AND YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION) FOR ANY REASON, including without limitation (a) to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or governmental request; (b) to enforce the terms of this or any other agreement or Blizzard policy; (c) to protect our legal rights and remedies; (d) where we feel someone’s health or safety may be threatened; or (e) to report a crime or other offensive behavior.
July 9, 2009: The Blizzcon prices for 2009 are being raised from 100$ to 125$ (they have been raised to 150$ for 2010 by the way), also Blizzard in a partnership with DIRECTV (and with increasing desire for more $$) provide Live Streaming of the Event for only 39.95$, although Streams from such events as the E3, Tokyo Gameshow or GamesCom are usually free… http://www.sk-gaming.com/content/25054-BlizzCon_video_stream_not_free_3995_pay_per_view
August 5, 2009: Shortly after Activision Blizzard announced, that it is going to raise the prices of games, starting with Modern Warfare 2 and games with additional Hardware like “Tony Hawk: Rider”, “Guitar Hero” and “DJ Hero”, Kotick mentions to an Analyst, that if it would be up to him he’d raise the prices even further: http://www.destructoid.com/kotick-i-would-raise-game-prices-higher-if-i-could-143049.phtml
And Tony, you know if it was left to me, I would raise the prices even further.
"This will begin with World of Warcraft and StarCraft II," Kotick added, calling the planned service, built by the Blizzard team, "similar to Xbox Live."
"There is no better opportunity to launch this strategic initiative than through the launch of StarCraft II," said Kotick on the call. "The Battle.net platform is an investment in the future of gaming, and an opportunity that we are uniquely positioned to capitalize on."
In the last cycle of videogames you spent $50 on a game, played it and took it back to the shop for credit. Today, we’ll (charge) $100 for a guitar. You might add a microphone or drums; you might buy two or three expansions packs, different types of music. Over the life of your ownership you’ll probably buy around 25 additional song packs in digital downloads. So, what used to be a $50 sale is a $500 sale today.
Most of the 20 years, that I have provided for growth at Activision, we were content to make products that are attractive to the 16-35 year old guy who has gotten no date for Saturday night.
As he works himself up to his personal masterpiece…
Kotick noted that in the past he changed the employee incentive program so that it "really rewards profit and nothing else." He continued, "You have studio heads who five years ago didn't know the difference between a balance sheet and a bed sheet who are now arguing allocations in our CFO's office pretty regularly. ... We have a real culture of thrift. The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games."
Yes, he just said that.
Ultimately, Kotick doesn't want his employees to take anything for granted. They should always be aware of "skepticism, pessimism, and fear" in the midst of the global economic downturn. "We are very good at keeping people focused on the deep depression," he said.
"It's definitely an aspiration that we see potential in, particularly as we look at different business models to monetise the online gameplay," he said, according to IGN. "There's good knowledge exchange happening between the Blizzard folks and our online guys.
"We have great experience also on Call Of Duty with the success we had on Xbox Live and PlayStation Network. A lot of that knowledge is getting actually built into the Battle.Net platform and the design of that. I think it's been mutually beneficial, and you should expect us to test and ultimately launch additional online monetization models of some of some of our biggest franchises like Call Of Duty."
Tippl also said that he wasn’t concerned about how gamers would react to having to pay for additional features.
"Our gamers are telling us there's lots of services and innovation they would like to see that they're not getting yet. From what we see so far, additional content, as well as all the services Blizzard is offering, is that there is demand from the core gamers to pay up for that.”
Radical Entertainment (Prototype, Scarface, Hulk: Ultimate Destruction) – they fire over 90 employees (about half the staff), Luxoflux (True Crime, Kung Fu Panda, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen) – closed down, Neversoft (Guitar Hero, Tony Hawk, Spider-Man) – fire over 50 employees, RedOctane (Guitar Hero and Plastic Instruments) – closed down, Underground Development (Guitar Hero: Van Halen, BMX XXX, Freestyle BMX, X-Men) – closed
Our significant accomplishments in 2009 are the result of the expertise and skills of our employees around the world. Their hard work and commitment to excellence made us stronger even during difficult times.
February 28, 2010: A fan project called “King’s Quest 9 – The Silver Lining” is being terminated by Activision, shortly before its release. You could say… sure this always happens, but this time it was a bit different.
The team of hobby-developers, which started working on the project back in 2002 (about 8 years ago) and got a cease-and-desist from Vivendi Universal in 2005, managed to negotiate a deal for a “non-commercial fan license”, which allowed them to develop and publish “The Silver Lining” after all. 2010, nearly done with the work on the project, they handed in a copy for review as agreed in said contract, upon which (the rights to it now belonging to Activision) Activision decided it had no interest in doing anything of the likes and sent another cease-and-desist instead, forcing them to take down their website and forums and to stop working on the project immediately, which they had to do.
March 2-4, 2010: A bunch of security people raid the Infinity Ward offices, both studio heads/CEOs Jason West and Vince Zampella get fired, they were replaced by internal Activision Publishing employees (who worked for Procter & Gamble and Nestle before).
Just 2 days later, the 2 ex-CEOs file a lawsuit against Activision regarding the rights to “Modern Warfare” and 36$ million of royalties + damages.
23. West and Zampella were not as eager as Activision to jump into the development of Modern Warfare 2. Despite assurances by Activision that West and Zampella would have complete freedom to run Infinity Ward as an independent studio, Activision had begun to intrude upon Infinity Ward's ability to create quality games. For example, Activision forced Infinity Ward's employees to continue producing the games at a break neck pace under aggressive schedules, and West and Zampella were concerned that Activision was emphasizing quantity over quality. Given Activision's insistence that Infinity Ward continue to focus on sequels to Call of Duty games instead of new intellectual property, West and Zampella were also concerned that Activision's demands risked "burning out" the Infinity Ward employees' creativity. Nurturing a creative environment had been one of the cornerstones of Infinity Ward's success. West and Zampella were not eager to extend their employment; especially as they watched their games receive countless awards and make Activision billions of dollars, while many Infinity Ward employees were not being provided a fair share.
25. To induce West and Zampella to create a game they had no obligation to create and to extend an Employment Agreement that was just months from expiring, Activision made several important promises in the MOU. First, the MOU gives West and Zampella creative authority over the development of any games under the Modern Warfare brand (or any Call of Duty game set in the post-Vietnam era, the near future or the distant future) including complete control over the Infinity Ward studio. The MOU explicitly provides that no such game can be commercially released without the written consent of West and Zampella. Second, the MOU gives West and Zampella the right to operate Infinity Ward independently and to choose to develop new intellectual property after they completed Modern Warfare 2.
30. In wake of Modern Warfare 2's success, Activision chose not to honor the MOU or Employment Agreement with West and Zampella. Activision chose, instead, to launch a pre-textual investigation against West and Zampella to create a basis to fire the two co-heads of Infinity Ward before the first Modern Warfare 2 royalty payment would be paid in the ordinary course, on March 31, 2010. ... Activision refused to tell either West or Zampella what specific acts or omissions Activision believed they had committed or what was prompting the investigation, insisting instead in Orwellian fashion that West and Zampella "already have a clear understanding of what they have or have not done." West and Zampella were told only that Activision was investigating potential "breaches of contract" and "violations" of Activision policies, and threatened that anything less than their full cooperation with the inquisition would constitute "insubordination", which itself would justify their termination.
32. Activision conducted the investigation in a manner designed to maximize the inconvenience and anxiety it would cause West and Zampella. On little notice, Activision insisted on conducting interviews over the Presidents' Day holiday weekend; West and Zampella were interrogated for over six hours in a windowless conference room; Activision investigators brought other Infinity Ward employees to tears in their questioning and accusations and threatened West and Zampella with "insubordination" if they attempted to console them; Activision's outside counsel demanded that West and Zampella surrender their personal computers, phones and communication devices to Activision for review by Activision's outside counsel and, when West and Zampella asserted their legally protected privacy rights, Activision's counsel said that doing so constituted further acts (of) insubordination.
West and Zampella are also entitled to exercise creative authority over the development of any games to be published under the Modern Warfare brand over any of the conduct of Infinity Ward Studio. But the day after it fired West and Zampella, Activision announced new strategic and personnel plans for Call of Duty franchise and has asserted complete control over the Modern Warfare brand and the Infinity Ward Studio.
In the aftermath Jason and Vince create “Respawn Entertainment”, and over 30+ key Infinity Ward employees leave Activision, some of them joining them there (after themselves filing another group lawsuit against Activision regarding them not being paid/withheld their bonuses to force a “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3”)
I've obtained a copy of a lawsuit filed this morning in the Los Angeles Superior Court by 38 plaintiffs, calling themselves the "Infinity Ward Employee Group," against Activision. The Infinity Ward Employee Group (whom I'll refer to as IWEG throughout the rest of this story) alleges breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of California labor code and more. The group is after a large amount of unpaid royalties. "Activision owes my clients approximately $75 million to $125 million dollars," said Bruce Isaacs, one of the IWEG's attorneys at Wyman & Isaacs LLP, over the phone this afternoon. "Activision has withheld most of the money to force many of my people to stay, some against their will, so that they would finish the delivery of Modern Warfare 3. That is not what they wanted to do. Many of them. My clients' entitled to their money. Activision has no right to withhold their money -- our money."
The new company map features one business unit focused squarely on the Call of Duty franchise, another overseeing Activision-owned brands such as Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero, and a third unit to handle licensed properties. Blizzard Entertainment rounds out the fourth unit but interestingly, Blizzard's Mike Morhaime now reports directly to newly appointed chief operating officer Thomas Tippl, who in turn reports to Activision CEO Bobby Kotick.
"This is an important change as it will allow me, with Thomas, to become more deeply involved in areas of the business where I believe we can capture great potential and opportunity," Kotick said in the employee memo.
"Performance shares" are, according to Investopedia, "shares of company stock given to managers only if certain company wide performance criteria are met, such as earnings per share targets." Meaning, in so many words, that Activision has to meet a certain performance level in order for Tippl to earn said shares. That they will "vest ratably" is only to say that on Feb. 15 of each year for the next four years, he will earn part of that eventual 225,000-share goal (in 2014) ... should he stay in his position for all that time, of course. And finally, this is all based on the prediction that he delivers a higher or equal to non-GAAP earning per share when compared to the previous year. In short, he has to either break even or make money to get the stocks, and he has to maintain that for the next four years. Quite a tall order, sir!
May 5, 2010: After already having developed the “World of WarCraft Armory App” for Facebook, it is decided to be integrated into the new Battle.Net 2.0 full time and Blizzard already announced further features coming from said “partnership”… http://kotaku.com/5531740/starcraft-ii-hooks-up-with-facebook
Blizzard concerning privacy:
Should I be concerned about the privacy settings on my Facebook account? Both Blizzard Entertainment and Facebook take the security of personal information very seriously.
Zuckerberg: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard Zuckerberg: Just ask. Zuckerberg: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuckerberg: People just submitted it. Zuckerberg: I don't know why. Zuckerberg: They "trust me" Zuckerberg: Dumb f*cks.
Expand this Quote, if you want to know more about why FaceBook made it into Battle.Net 2.0 over several dozen other features.
Activision CEO Bobby Kotick isn't worried about Guitar Hero growing stale or Tony Hawk losing out to Skate. Or, at least that stuff isn't keeping him up at night. The bigger threat to Activision games is (dun dun dun) social networking. He explains:
Figuring out how to make the game experience more fun than any one of a hundred Facebook applications is going to be a challenge.
It seems like baby boomers and even some Gen Xers still don't grasp the more modern concept of multitasking. Mr. Kotick, you may want to sit down for this. We may use ten apps within Facebook, but we often do so while playing a game..
Zynga’s wildly popular FarmVille has made a lot of traction in the modern gaming industry, but Activision’s Bobby Kotick has said that while the phenomenon is ‘interesting’ , social games remain ‘characterized by [an] unproven business model’ .
The current model includes selling in-game items for real cash, as well as in Zynga’s case, ‘offers’ , where the user takes a trial of a product in exchange for in-game money. (Something which has landed them in a little trouble.)
Accordingly to Kotick, Activision will continue to examine the idea of social gaming, saying ‘[currently,] these opportunities are better utilized as a means to connect our community and extend the brand, and less about financial scale or huge financial return’.
While the nature of these games is currently supplementary, Kotick also spoke of the company’s $1.3 billion revenue from digital sales. This includes DLC, subscriptions and mobile incomes, and could easily accommodate social gaming revenue. Develop also points out Activision’s $300 million purchase of PlayFish, an online game developer which could form the basis of Activision’s social gaming team.
What this will ultimately result in is a surge of new titles designed for use on Facebook and other networking sites, with Kotick mentioning both Call of Duty and Guitar Hero franchises as a possible way to cash in on some of that social gaming dough.
The main problem, however, is that a lot of these games develop organically in the community and Activision, known for its blitz-like marketing, could simply start pushing games onto people who don’t want them. If Activision does enter the market, be sure that it’ll be in a sufficiently aggressive manner. It’ll probably result in a ton of crappy Facebook games that you or I will never play, but causal gamers will flood to them, so why not, eh?
By seamlessly integrating an innovative "Share" button, Blur lets players choose to light up the competition in both single and multi-player modes by sending game challenges to friends and posting in-game photos, racing stats, unlockable items and much more on their Facebook pages.
"Blur's innovative integration with Facebook makes it easy for players to interact with their real friends to share game play, emotions, and the racing experience," said Dan Rose, Vice President of Partnerships and Platform Marketing, Facebook. "Blur is leading the next generation of console games integrating with Facebook to make gaming more social for our more than 400 million users."
"Blur is the first multi-platform videogame that connects the television to Facebook, and for the first time, videogame audiences on the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 and PC will be able to link their console gameplay to their network of friends," said Robert Kotick, CEO, Activision Blizzard. "Facebook has become a fantastic platform for videogames and Blur elevates it even further."
Blur is the ultimate powered-up racing experience, where players collect addictive and intense Power-ups throughout each course, including the ability to blast other cars out of the way with huge bursts of energy, boost speed with Nitros, drop Mines and even generate defensive shields to fend off other racers. Blur offers online multiplayer supporting competitive and cooperative gameplay for up to 20 racers, including team racing and objective based events, and also supports 4-player split-screen. For more information on Blur, please visit the official game web site located at www.blurthegame.com, and check-out Blur on Facebook at www.facebook.com/blurthegame.
Blur is scheduled for release nationwide May 25th for the Xbox 360(R) video game and entertainment system from Microsoft, PLAYSTATION(R)3 computer entertainment system, and the PC, and is rated "E10+" by the ESRB.
June 15th-17th, 2010: At this year's E3, instead of having their own booth or presentation like EA did, Activision had a meeting room away from the craziness of the show floor, where they mainly talked to analysts and reporters. Read on if you want to know more about why Activision thinks that franchises can't get stale (no matter how many titles you put out there), some of the things they want to achieve, why it doesn't make sense for developers to feel good and have relaxation possibilities while making games or get new carpets and why videogames should be sold like washing powder.
GS: Also during the call, Bobby Kotick talked about a "culture of thrift" in the company. But people seem to think with Blizzard, you just give them the resources they want and then step back, letting them do what they do. Are they exempt from that culture of thrift?
TT: No, and I don't think they want to be exempt from that. The culture of thrift isn't about not investing in the games. It's exactly about investing in the games. If we don't waste money on golden toilets and what have you, that gives us the resources to invest in the games so we make a great game. Subsequently, it gives us the ability to spend big in marketing a game.
I don't know if you've been at our offices. We've had the same office since forever, and we just replaced the duct tape on the carpet because it became a trip hazard down the stairs. And that took five years to get done. So we are thrifty in the areas where frankly, the consumer doesn't see value. We are not thrifty in the areas where the consumer sees the value, which is in the game development.
That's why we added 300 headcount to Blizzard's development team, 900 headcount to the customer service team, 300 headcount around the Call of Duty franchise. There are many areas where we are making massive investments to improve the gamer experience, and then there are areas where we think it's not worth it. So we don't have a company gym, cafeteria, and valet parking. Because the gamer doesn't care about that. They don't see value in any of that. Go talk to Blizzard or the Treyarch guys or the Sledgehammer guys. We put the money where the gamer's going to see it.
Furthermore, he sees every move they make validated, because "gamers continue to buy their games".
GS: Activision's not too popular with some gamers after Kotick's comments about taking the fun out of development, the Brutal Legend lawsuit, or the Infinity Ward drama earlier this year. How do you deal with that negative perception? Is it something you can see affecting the bottom line at all?
TT: I would say this: When you become the number one in any industry, you automatically get a target painted on your back. That's just a fact of life, so you have to be able to deal with this. I think there's a very vocal minority that expresses very strong opinions. But at the end of the day, if you look at the overall results we've delivered, 2009 was a very difficult year in the industry. And we have succeeded in that environment because gamers continue to buy our games...because we market the franchise and not the company, and they get a great entertainment experience. So that's the most important thing.
What would Kotick do if he had one instant wish to change something in his company? He apparently wouldn't make his employees happier or create a better working environment, he wouldn't want to create a new succesful original IP but he'd make Call of Duty a subscription based service as soon as he could... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509404575301231400042578.html
WSJ: If you could snap your fingers, and instantly make one change in your company, what would it be, and why?
Mr. Kotick: I would have Call of Duty be an online subscription service tomorrow. When you think about what the audience's interests are and how you could really satisfy bigger audiences with more inspired, creative opportunities, I would love to see us have an online Call of Duty world. I think our players would just have so much of a more compelling experience.
WSJ: Is that coming?
Mr. Kotick: Hopefully.
WSJ: Are the customers ready for it?
Mr. Kotick: I think our audiences are clamoring for it. If you look at what they're playing on Xbox Live today, we've had 1.7 billion hours of multiplayer play on Live. I think we could do a lot more to really satisfy the interests of the customers. I think we could create so many things, and make the game even more fun to play. We haven't really had a chance to do that yet, so that would be my snap of the fingers.
When Tippl joined Activision in 2005, he brought with him several years of executive experience with highly-successful consumer goods company Procter & Gamble, which is home for products ranging from toilet paper to potato chips to laundry detergent. He still draws from that mass market experience.
“When people come up and tell me, ‘how can you possibly make another Call of Duty,’ I always tell them that I used to work for a company that every year had to figure out how to make a white shirt whiter,” Tippl said. “And [Procter & Gamble] have been doing that for 35 years with a product like Tide.”
He continued, “You’re telling me with all the opportunities we have, and the technologies and the content ... and all the different stories, the characters that we can develop, that we can’t innovate on a franchise for 10 years? Give me a break. Then we’re just not doing our job.”
…to be continued, but remember after successfully pulling something off/enforcing it (which they ultimately will, like others did with stuff like Online Activation, DLCs, DRM, Micropayments etc.) it never gets better… only worse
Wow lot of work went into this. I kind of favor not being overly critical of Blizzard and instead focusing on what blizzard should improve. Never the less im impressed at the amount of research.
sheesh the shit that went on with Infinity Ward is just fucked up, they just kicked out the main guys because Activision is too cheap to pay the royalties on the title? seriously WTF? they just fucking killed the goose or duck laying golden eggs...
On May 30 2010 06:04 Vynakros wrote: Amagad, just read through it... And at first I thought the merger was going to be positive for us end users...
EDIT: Because I was such a hardcore Blizz games fan, this day feels like a familiar friend died. And now he returns as a zombie...
yeah, this most of all. even though i've experienced the change first-hand, there's a strong temptation to believe in the illusion that blizzard is immune to all the bullshit that plagues everything else. unfortunately it's apparent blizzard isn't immune at all
I guess that does put a lot of the battle.net decisions into perspective. I think things like no-cross server playing and no chat-rooms really does show a gross misunderstanding of the starcraft community by activision-blizzard. Would someone who was active in the BW scene and understood what made the BW community special really make it impossible to hold international tournaments?
My wow friends and I were remembering when servers used to be very unstable (4-5 years ago), Blizzard used to give us free days played time added to our account.
The chance of activision blizzard ever giving out anything free ever ever is absolutely zero.
And here I thought that Blizzard was a potential future employment possibility! Thanks for the summary. I think I will stick to my 20-man developer team back home
Just like the banking corporations' greed caused the collapse of financial markets, and the greed of the oil corporations caused the worst oil spill in history...
When you focus only on profits and not on a long term strategy of making a quality product and a quality community you are doomed to failure.
Blizzard has stated multiple times on the WoW forums that activision has absolutely no say in WoW or SC2 devlopement. Blizzard owns 51% of activision anyways.
I seriously want to throw up. In other news, I think that a case could be made that this guy (Kotick) is demonstrably a sociopath. Seriously. It's sort of scary that these types of people are often the CEOs of companies (to me).
There's a LOT of quotes here taken out of context and spun very negatively. Bobby Kotick is well known as someone who speaks directly to his investors and not to fans, obviously always telling them what they want to hear, usually to the fans' chagrin. He is definitely the "money guy" that just about every gamer hates, but I think the connections between him and Blizzard's decisions are overstated. Blizzard still has a lot of core gamers and veteran developers high up in their ranks, and their virtual autonomy allows them to push back on most of what Kotick tries to enforce upon them. That's not to say Blizzard isn't interested in money as well, they just know when to say when, unlike Kotick.
On May 30 2010 06:25 renshank wrote: I seriously want to throw up. In other news, I think that a case could be made that this guy (Kotick) is demonstrably a sociopath. Seriously. It's sort of scary that these types of people are often the CEOs of companies (to me).
you have to be a sociopath to sell your soul to satan for corporate profits
On May 30 2010 06:26 Excalibur_Z wrote: There's a LOT of quotes here taken out of context and spun very negatively. Bobby Kotick is well known as someone who speaks directly to his investors and not to fans, obviously always telling them what they want to hear, usually to the fans' chagrin. He is definitely the "money guy" that just about every gamer hates, but I think the connections between him and Blizzard's decisions are overstated. Blizzard still has a lot of core gamers and veteran developers high up in their ranks, and their virtual autonomy allows them to push back on most of what Kotick tries to enforce upon them. That's not to say Blizzard isn't interested in money as well, they just know when to say when, unlike Kotick.
Except when they offer bonuses even higher than their salary, money > fans.
So is there anybody who still thinks that any change from KeSPA is a good one? I don't like the potential here of going from bad management (as KeSPA currently is -- they've done a lot for e-sports historically, but they are too controlling these days) to worse.
The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games.
Mod edit: please don't make death threats.
Seriously, this guy is a terrible human being.
He's almost so evil it makes me feel like it has to be a cover for something =[
Edit: Just read the full thing... whether or not this is biased... I don't like what I heard about this guy. I guess the old Blizz guys don't really have to care though. They must have made millions from their games and especially with WoW now.
Also, I've enjoyed every one of their games including SC2; I think everyone is just cheesed off because of bnet atm, and a post like this came at the "right" time..
Hey well look at MW2 now, about 15% of the people who bought the game bought the DLC, let Activision keep doing this, and they will see how their balance sheets and profit margins look when no one buys their games anymore because they are tired of the over-priced, under-developed mediocre shit they usually churn out. We can only hope the merger allowed Blizzard enough say on what it will and will not do that Kotick and the Activision side can't outright force Blizzard to follow the exact same business model. (Blizzard clearly wants to make more money from their games prior to this merger even occurred). I agree with Kotick being a major douche but at the same time you can't exactly blame him, he's a CEO and was brought on at Activision (and now Activision Blizzard), and his job is to make the companies money. Following his example, however incorrect and poorly thought out it may be, they will make money, for a while.
That's the key there, for a while. Once people realize the Activision (intentional typo) is simply pumping out the same re-hashed games year after year for increasingly higher prices, they will simply stop playing them.
On May 30 2010 06:36 SichuanPanda wrote: Hey well look at MW2 now, about 15% of the people who bought the game bought the DLC, let Activision keep doing this, and they will see how their balance sheets and profit margins look when no one buys their games anymore because they are tired of the over-priced, under-developed mediocre shit they usually churn out. We can only hope the merger allowed Blizzard enough say on what it will and will not do that Kotick and the Activision side can't outright force Blizzard to follow the exact same business model. (Blizzard clearly wants to make more money from their games prior to this merger even occurred). I agree with Kotick being a major douche but at the same time you can't exactly blame him, he's a CEO and was brought on at Activision (and now Activision Blizzard), and his job is to make the companies money. Following his example, however incorrect and poorly thought out it may be, they will make money, for a while.
That's the key there, for a while. Once people realize the Activision (intentional typo) is simply pumping out the same re-hashed games year after year for increasingly higher prices, they will simply stop playing them.
YEAH
Just like the movie industry and how people stopped going to see movies that are just remakes of old movies!
Consumers are too smart to be sold the same crap in a different box... right?
All of this makes a lot of sense, and honestly was not shocking to me at all.
There was a decisive swing in atmosphere regarding the blue interaction with each games respective community around the time all of this happened.
It is quite interesting how they are trying to force facebook onto people while simultaneously eliminating all other means of interaction within b.net 2.0; I honestly don't expect identifiers to come back. Since the facebook terms of service say in clear terms that they sell your personal information to third parties, I could easily foresee this happening with b.net 2.0 as well.
Essentially we have 1 extremely shady CEO getting in bed with an equally shady/despicable CEO. They're like the dynamic duo of gaming fascism.
Threads like this are so dangerous. You list a number of ominous sounding facts playing up to the playerbase's need for a target for their anger. Of course, now I imagine it'll be a trend on this forum to name-drop Activision and consider that an argument in itself. I don´t get that it is intrinsically evil to try to sell your customer-base products and try to get a business model that makes you the most money. The actual problem is that battle.net 2.0 is bad. I agree with that, but why not passionately argue for the list of features most people agree on that they want, instead of peddling your conspiracy theories designed to invoke hatred and mistrust of Blizzard.
On May 30 2010 06:14 Kraz.Del wrote: Blizzard has stated multiple times on the WoW forums that activision has absolutely no say in WoW or SC2 devlopement. Blizzard owns 51% of activision anyways.
That's not exactly true xD
As far as I understand it, "Activision Blizzard" is a Holding company, created to merge the two "independent" companies called "Activision" and "Blizzard Entertainment".
"Blizzard Entertainment" was owned by Vivendi since 1998 (when Blizzard was still owned by SIERRA, and SIERRA was part of a French publisher called Havas, and Vivendi being a French conglomerate themselves bought that one.)
Vivendi currently owns 54% of its subsidiary "Activision Blizzard", the difference between "Vivendi" and "Activision" being, that Vivendi owns other things like Canal+, the Maroc Telecom, Universal Music, parts of NBC Universal, Universal Studios and a bunch of other stuff detailed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Vivendi Vivendi let Blizzard do their thing, because they did not exactly have much "knowledge" in the video game business and didn't care that much, Activision being a lot different as their main and only business IS games.
"I was talking to [Blizzard founder] Mike Morhaime the other day and I said, 'You know, I could have bought you for seven million and instead it was seven billion.' [Laughs] He said, 'Yeah, could you imagine if I had just held out for the seven billion instead of the seven million?'”
It’s difficult to imagine what the gaming landscape would be like if Kotick had been the one acquiring Blizzard way back then, rather than Vivendi doing the buying.
The thing is, while it might be true that most (some?) of the development teams might not have been directly influenced or changed by the merger early on, things like company policy, marketing and economic factors did change on a higher level and directly transferred down to the other stuff... I think noone can argue that "StarCraft 2" itself is a bad game, but all the shit surrounding it, especially B.Net 2.0 and the monetization and marketing is.
On May 30 2010 06:20 jstar wrote: "Over 500 employees fired due to 'modest' Starcraft 2 sales"
"Blizzard files lawsuit against own parent company"
"ATVI drops 70% to an all time low"
"Kotick found dead in his own home"
ahh.. the perfect world.
Yeah sure, as if that'll happen Maybe by the time StarCraft 6 and Diablo 7 comes out and people have a different view on matters like with all those "Hero"-games and "Tony Hawk".
The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games.
I want to kill this man. Jesus, it's like he takes pleasure in sounding evil.
Seriously, this guy is a terrible human being.
He's almost so evil it makes me feel like it has to be a cover for something =[
Lets hope he is from the future and knows that sc2 will destroy the planet, and he came back in time to be the biggest asshole on earth to stop any development of sc2 or esports......
Guys, Blizzard still owned by Vivendi. Activision has almost zero control over Blizzard. This whole "Activision Blizzard" name was brought about because it sounded good. This whole write-up, while thorough, spins the events and takes things out of context. Think of how many things Blizzard did do because of fan feedback.
The battlecruiser shot, graphics revamp, nerfing of the mothership, etc. You guys are blowing things way out of proportion. Yes, Battlenet 2.0 may be less than ideal, but the core game is still fantastic, and they still are very engaged with the community for a modern game developer.
You all also do realize that everything Blizzard did was for a reason, not because their evil money gabbers. You may disagree with their reasons, but they are not just trying to be some evil corporate entity, and Activision is not trying to make them one. For example, the game was split into three parts because the campaign was so big and intricate. The expansions will be no more than $40, and we'll be gifted with double the new units we would normally get.
TLDR: The write-up is fundamentally flawed. It takes things out of context and ignores many facts without directly linking all the events it described to BNet 2.0's currents state. Activision has zero control over Blizzard, and neither entity is trying to make SCII some cheap money grab.
very good post. Man, before that interview with that other guy whose name escapes me now I was definitely gonna buy sc2. But after reading that I was thinking of maybe buying it for single player mode. Now after reading about how these companies operate, I am probably just gonna play single player at the internet cafe get the story and be done with it... Or I heard some guy was gonna stream campaign mode when he gets the game...
Ah well, I'll just practice the piano in the mean time. :p Count Waltz
I think the Facebook part at the end is totally irrelevant, but I'm withholding on SC2 for now. It's not at a level yet where I'd want to put up with more bullshit, and I don't really feel like fueling the new Activision-Blizzard. Plus I have plenty of other games to play.
I had defended Blizzard before, especially with the Kespa deal, but not anymore.
rofl im so dumb. i always hated EA cause they are money whores, but activison blizzard is even a bigger money whore. FUCK YOU EA FUCK YOU BLIZZARD i will go back to the roots and play on my old nintendo and atari.
On May 30 2010 06:46 Level10Peon wrote: TLDR: The write-up is fundamentally flawed. It takes things out of context and ignores many facts without directly linking all the events it described to BNet 2.0's currents state. Activision has zero control over Blizzard, and neither entity is trying to make SCII some cheap money grab.
The article doesn't link to SC2, it links to Bnet 2.0. Things like premium maps and paid features are bullshit.
The paid account protection for WoW is especially hilarious. It almost seems like lawsuit bait.
Here is why stuff that people and companies like Activison does works:
- the companies are run by non gamers. The shareholders couldn't care less if these were games or sacks of potatoes. Just a fact. They pay money to invest in the company and only look at money as a measure of success. Understandable.
- the majority of the customers these companies have, including Starcraft customers, do not know or care about the stuff we here are all mad about. That is why games they make sell at higher prices and they can even get away with high priced DLC.
- YOU want their product and they know that. Most of us here will huff and puff but still buy Starcraft 2. Remember MW2? yeah... We lost any kind of credibility after that fiasco.
Sonpeople like this dude are actually very good! He is doing an excellent job. Just the job we don't want him to do, but the one he was HIRED to do: make money for the shareholders.
It's called reality. At the end of the day, it's YOUR money that is driving ALL of this
finally finished reading the post. that part about the interview with a facebook employee was interesting. i've seen that one before. he meant it very seriously but also as a joke at the same time. what he was saying by saying those things is that it's exactly as secure as you want it to be. if you want to freely share information, that's your choice. you can also have no information displayed at all, except to only specific people. the privacy settings are pretty good. he's trying to warn you that if you're going to use the service, you should use it with caution. because there are bad people out there, heh heh. it just so happens that 4000 people don't feel that way about that zuckerberg guy. edit: that or they're just plain not threatened by him. which makes sense. they say your chances of being shot by a gun are increased if you possess a gun.
The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games.
The gaming industry isn't like it was 10-15 years ago folks,things have changed rapidly.And this goes on many levels,they dont make as good movies as they did in the old days,the same goes for music and pretty much in all forms of art.
On May 30 2010 06:46 Level10Peon wrote: Activision has zero control over Blizzard, and neither entity is trying to make SCII some cheap money grab.
Pretty sure this guy is a troll
You all are looking for a target for your frustration, so you picked Activision. I agree, BNet 2.0 needs work, but at least have some rationality. Threads like this are not productive.
On May 30 2010 06:36 SichuanPanda wrote: Hey well look at MW2 now, about 15% of the people who bought the game bought the DLC, let Activision keep doing this, and they will see how their balance sheets and profit margins look when no one buys their games anymore because they are tired of the over-priced, under-developed mediocre shit they usually churn out.
It occurred to me that people on a Starcraft forum won't necessarily realize how utterly ruined the Call of Duty franchise was. Back in the day, I was a huge FPS gamer. It started with Quake, but I also grew to love RTCW and eventually CoD.
For anyone that wants an interesting PC game or two, check out the first two Call of Duty games. They are a fantastic single player experience and a really solid multiplayer experience (borrowing heavily from the trends/community set up in Quake/RTCW).
Then look at Call of Duty 4 (CoD 3 was some console exclusive that I never played and no one ever took seriously afaik). Compare the experience of playing CoD vs. CoD4 (aka Modern Warfare). The single player is just garbage in comparison. The multiplayer is totally bogged down by the RPG-style level grinding system that ruins the game as a legitimate competitive platform. The advertising campaign and the swift move to full-on consolization guaranteed that the community was super-low quality and filled to the brim with transient gamers (those who buy a game, play for a month or two, and then never touch it).
They made 10 million USD off DLC on the consoles (which was released for free on the PC). A normal person of normal intelligence would think to themselves immediately "Man, the console gamers got ripped off!" But Activision instead thought to themselves "Man, we really ripped ourselves off by giving stuff away on the PC!" (though it was sponsored by nVidia).
I won't even talk about the complete disaster that is Modern Warfare 2. Disaster in terms of being a game I would ever consider playing. Not only did Activision make a shitload of money off the game + DLC, they also butchered the developer afterwards as was made clear in the OP.
----------------
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if Activision gets their hands too far into Blizzard, they will ruin everything by instantly targeting games towadrs the least common denominator. I think Starcraft 2 is pretty fucking amazing right now, but I'm very concerned about Battlenet and the influence it seems like Activision has on it. Battlenet is becoming less and less a platform to play the game and more a launchpad for marketing and nickel-and-diming people to death.
Kotick won't interfere with the development of games, he'll just squeeze every cent of a game, what am I saying? Everything we hate about SC2 is because of this guy, BNet 2.0 is his monster, right now we don't grasp the fully horrible beast that this will become, just think about it, they'll have total control of tournaments, if you want to create one you have to pay, what if they decide that you also have to pay to use custom maps on tournaments, what if pro-leagues use paid expansion maps? I'm hoping nothing that I said becomes true, but I can see it happening, just watch the whole Kespa vs Blizzard, it's got Kotick all over it.
On May 30 2010 06:42 Mothxal wrote: Threads like this are so dangerous. You list a number of ominous sounding facts playing up to the playerbase's need for a target for their anger. Of course, now I imagine it'll be a trend on this forum to name-drop Activision and consider that an argument in itself.
I have boycotted all activision games since I learned of some of there corporate practices. Kotics ravings didn't help either. I hope that I don't have to lump Blizzard in with Activision but I will if things keep going in the direction that they are.
Unfortunately the characteristics shown by R. Kotick are the same as most CEO's of multinationals. It's not their job to please the fans/customers, that is the job of the sales teams (and other front end teams who have contact points with customers). The job of Kotick is to keep the shareholders happy and maximizing profit of the company he is running. Although portraited evil here, this is the job of any CEO so that the company keeps on surviving.
Not trying to defend Kotick here, I think he should be more careful with his statements. But I'm just saying that he is there for the shareholders, not the consumers. As long as consumers buy the products, his stance will not change.
- YOU want their product and they know that. Most of us here will huff and puff but still buy Starcraft 2. Remember MW2? yeah... We lost any kind of credibility after that fiasco.
I, for one, won't be buying SC2, and I hope the people who're with me on this will be stronger willed than the MW2ers.
@OP, thanks for reigniting my Kotick hatred, awesome writeup.
i for one will skip buying sc2 until i have a good idea of what bnet 2.0 actually means.
if they really want to isolate gamers (like in mw2 through no dedicated servers) or try to take control over tournaments, i will just play the singleplayer or watch it on youtube and skip sc2.
it's just a game after all. and i have other means of shelling out my money than to someone who bought the company i have been playing games of the last 15 years. sucks for blizzard, but that's what you get in capitalism.
lol at all the people in here crying about activision blizzard, but will still end up buying the game
face it, you have nothing better to do in your lives than play their video games. you know it. bobby kotick knows it. don't be mad he chooses to exploit your social ineptness. it is why he is the alpha male CEO and you guys are the sheep.
On May 30 2010 06:46 The6357 wrote: sounds like Blizzard is a bad place to work...and no wonder Blizzard puts "Blizzard is Hiring" ad on b.net...they can't keep their employees!!!!
Dunno if this post is serious, but I think Blizzard is probably still one of the very best places in the gaming industry to work... I very much doubt they have any issues pertaining to employee retention.
Awesome but disturbing post. Was very enlightening to see the path this company has taken over the last few years put in one chronological post. That said, anyone who has seen the path WoW has taken over the last few years and with MW2 knew this was coming. Activision Blizzard is in it for the money and only the money and anyone who argues otherwise is a fool.
But I wish them good luck on a monthly subscription Call of Duty. That has "massive failure" written all over it.
- YOU want their product and they know that. Most of us here will huff and puff but still buy Starcraft 2. Remember MW2? yeah... We lost any kind of credibility after that fiasco.
I, for one, won't be buying SC2, and I hope the people who're with me on this will be stronger willed than the MW2ers.
Now I just feel powerless. I was a mild fan of the CoD games, but I didn't buy MW2. It wasn't a hard decision for me. It was (and still is) an expensive game to buy. But, lots of other people bought it. And this is why we can't have nice things.
On May 30 2010 07:05 PrideNeverDies wrote: lol at all the people in here crying about activision blizzard, but will still end up buying the game
face it, you have nothing better to do in your lives than play their video games. you know it. bobby kotick knows it. don't be mad he chooses to exploit your social ineptness. it is why he is the alpha male CEO and you guys are the sheep.
lol at you. I'm not buying SC2 and Diablo 3. I've said that many times before this post was even made because I already knew about it. Just because people play games doesn't mean they're socially inept retard.
On May 30 2010 06:46 The6357 wrote: sounds like Blizzard is a bad place to work...and no wonder Blizzard puts "Blizzard is Hiring" ad on b.net...they can't keep their employees!!!!
Dunno if this post is serious, but I think Blizzard is probably still one of the very best places in the gaming industry to work... I very much doubt they have any issues pertaining to employee retention.
Yeah I believe this is true. I think everyone is really more irritated over some issues in bnet 2.0 and then the attitude/comments from Frank Pearce irritated people more. So a post like this really stirs people ><
From what I can see... if you make a company and need money... make it yourself, don't give in to someone with a big V or big A. But they've done well and sc2 is pretty darn good. Who knows where the future will go.
Well written post, but still nonetheless very shocking. I for one am deeply saddened to see yet another game company turn to corporate. It is this sort of thing that really shatters the nostalgia of what it was like to grow up playing great games like Starcraft, Starcraft:BW, Warcraft, and other things. What we once saw as embodying the sense of our freedom and individuality has now become a gigantic money suck for us to pony up to.
It really is a harsh thing to realize, but Blizzard is gone. Way gone. They arn't coming back.
On May 30 2010 06:56 alkampfer wrote: That man is EVIL
welcome to the corporation. this stuff is going on anywhere in the world. they take what you love and exploit any chance for a profit with it, knowing the customer will buy it anyway.
and i must add that i feel an IMMENSE amount of aggression towards this CEO-figure.
alright. thats it. i had a lot of issues with what sc2 and bnet 2.0 are made to be from the start. through the whole of beta, despite all the flaws and countless calls from the community, endless threads etc, even after that interview with frank pearce i was still optimistic. i didnt like bnet 2.0, and sc2 wasnt as great a game as bw. but it was still good enough and fun to play with my friends. so even though i wouldnt buy the overpriced german version i told myself that i would buy an UK import if there would be enough people for me to enjoy the game with.
but even i will draw a line when it is too much. and this is where i draw my line. no sc2 for me. id have loved to have another chance to excel at a game that i can play with friends. but everyone has to set priorities, and what this company has seemingly turned into isnt worth even one customer.
i want to see heads roll. not just one, but many of them. until that happens activision blizzard will disappear from my radar.
i can only hope that enough people share the same belief and that the only ones remaining will be mindless drones spending their life in and their money on that matrix that this world is creating for them.
On May 30 2010 07:05 PrideNeverDies wrote: lol at all the people in here crying about activision blizzard, but will still end up buying the game
face it, you have nothing better to do in your lives than play their video games. you know it. bobby kotick knows it. don't be mad he chooses to exploit your social ineptness. it is why he is the alpha male CEO and you guys are the sheep.
lol at you. I'm not buying SC2 and Diablo 3. I've said that many times before this post was even made because I already knew about it. Just because people play games doesn't mean they're socially inept retard.
someone who has a well balanced social life wouldn't be so defensive against my statements. your outrage betrays you.
Nothing wrong with trying to make money with new business models, until it starts to affect the quality of the actual game. All your online moneymaking gimmicks mean nothing if you lose your reputation for making high quality games. Go ahead and make your profit, but not at the cost of gameplay.
So I just read through all of that, and I have to say... if most of that is true, I seriously fear for the direction SC2 is taking. I hope its all just propaganda though.
In the last cycle of videogames you spent $50 on a game, played it and took it back to the shop for credit. Today, we’ll (charge) $100 for a guitar. You might add a microphone or drums; you might buy two or three expansions packs, different types of music. Over the life of your ownership you’ll probably buy around 25 additional song packs in digital downloads. So, what used to be a $50 sale is a $500 sale today.
What the hell does he takes his customer's for? He doesn't even respect the customer man. He even plays with the developer's. Games that were close to production and after YEARS of work put into it got scrapped right away.
On May 30 2010 06:56 alkampfer wrote: That man is EVIL
welcome to the corporation. this stuff is going on anywhere in the world. they take what you love and exploit any chance for a profit with it, knowing the customer will buy it anyway.
and i must add that i feel an IMMENSE amount of aggression towards this CEO-figure.
you should only feel aggression towards yourself if you are among the ones that are buying this product.
On May 30 2010 06:21 Roggay wrote: Wooow, instructive read. Makes me want to kill this Kotick.
On May 30 2010 06:20 jstar wrote: "Over 500 employees fired due to 'modest' Starcraft 2 sales"
"Blizzard files lawsuit against own parent company"
"ATVI drops 70% to an all time low"
"Kotick found dead in his own home"
ahh.. the perfect world.
both of you are forgetting that this is a capitalist world no1 forced blizzard to merge with activision every1's personal greed is what makes this species (mankind so horrible) every1 wants to make money and care about nothing else in the process
i am very glad free services like thepiratebay, iccup, etc. exist piracy is not something to blame, piracy is just a result of the big corporation's greed and hunger for money
On May 30 2010 07:05 PrideNeverDies wrote: lol at all the people in here crying about activision blizzard, but will still end up buying the game
face it, you have nothing better to do in your lives than play their video games. you know it. bobby kotick knows it. don't be mad he chooses to exploit your social ineptness. it is why he is the alpha male CEO and you guys are the sheep.
i think the problem this article is addressing is how Blizzard is being influenced by the business practise of Activision, i for one believe that the folks at Blizzard are actually some of the few developers left that are truly enthusiastic and care about their work.
true that we're getting the short end of the stick, but it doesn't have to end that way, again instead of just QQ-ing in these forums, we should all take a much more serious approach in voicing our concern on the current state of Battlenet.
MAKE OUR VOICES BE HEARD AND NOT FALL ON DEAF EARS!!!
wimpy polls or petition on forum sites isn't gonna cut it!
On May 30 2010 06:46 The6357 wrote: sounds like Blizzard is a bad place to work...and no wonder Blizzard puts "Blizzard is Hiring" ad on b.net...they can't keep their employees!!!!
Dunno if this post is serious, but I think Blizzard is probably still one of the very best places in the gaming industry to work... I very much doubt they have any issues pertaining to employee retention.
Knowing somebody that works there, it's a great environment. They are trying to cut benefits but Morhaine is holding strong. Also, the employees are stuck in an interesting position. From what I've heard they get pretty ridiculously good percs from activision, but everyone's alliance still lies with Morhaine. (at least the old timers)
On May 30 2010 06:21 Roggay wrote: Wooow, instructive read. Makes me want to kill this Kotick.
On May 30 2010 06:20 jstar wrote: "Over 500 employees fired due to 'modest' Starcraft 2 sales"
"Blizzard files lawsuit against own parent company"
"ATVI drops 70% to an all time low"
"Kotick found dead in his own home"
ahh.. the perfect world.
no1 forced blizzard to merge with activision
Yes they did; Activision (Vivendi?) owns >50% shares in Blizzard, that means they own them.
Not really. A merger is different from an acquisition. Activision Blizzard was a result of a merger. It is voluntary on both companies.
Wrong; this was not an acquisition, but it was not a straightforward merger. Both companies were owned by Vivendi and Vivendi decided to merge them together. That is not a straight-forward merger as the consent of both subordinate undertakings is not required; with a majority share Vivendi can (and did) forcibly merge the two companies together. It also got to pick and choose who would sit on the board of directors for that merged company.
On May 30 2010 07:05 PrideNeverDies wrote: lol at all the people in here crying about activision blizzard, but will still end up buying the game
face it, you have nothing better to do in your lives than play their video games. you know it. bobby kotick knows it. don't be mad he chooses to exploit your social ineptness. it is why he is the alpha male CEO and you guys are the sheep.
I agree completely. People complain about this and that but you will still buy the game and your friends will buy the game. Then you'll continue to complain on bnet but still buy the expansions.
Look if you want to punish Activision then you have to punish their stock. How do you do this? Well DON'T BUY their games. But that won't happen right guys?
The OP was a good read but definitely one sided. I always try to look objectively at both sides of the story and who knows the OP has a short on Activision stock.
The only solution I see is if you guys buy the game/expansions and love blizzard so much then just get some ownership in the company. I'm sure you guys will start rooting for this guy because he's making you richer.
It's called capitalism, don't hate it. Remember you can vote with your money.
On May 30 2010 07:05 PrideNeverDies wrote: lol at all the people in here crying about activision blizzard, but will still end up buying the game
face it, you have nothing better to do in your lives than play their video games. you know it. bobby kotick knows it. don't be mad he chooses to exploit your social ineptness. it is why he is the alpha male CEO and you guys are the sheep.
I agree completely. People complain about this and that but you will still buy the game and your friends will buy the game. Then you'll continue to complain on bnet but still buy the expansions.
Look if you want to punish Activision then you have to punish their stock. How do you do this? Well DON'T BUY their games. But that won't happen right guys?
The OP was a good read but definitely one sided. I always try to look objectively at both sides of the story and who knows the OP has a short on Activision stock.
The only solution I see is if you guys buy the game/expansions and love blizzard so much then just get some ownership in the company. I'm sure you guys will start rooting for this guy because he's making you richer.
It's called capitalism, don't hate it. Remember you can vote with your money.
Buying ATVI stock instead of buying Starcraft 2 or WoW subscriptions might make a difference, but it will also give them money in the process. At the end of the day no one can do what we all want to do which is fire Bobby Kotdick from the company and sue him on multiple counts of mismanagement and wrongful dismissal - no severance package, no golden handshake, no red carpet. A swift kick in the butt and a lawsuit to boot.
On May 30 2010 06:51 Kinslayer wrote: Here is why stuff that people and companies like Activison does works:
- the companies are run by non gamers. The shareholders couldn't care less if these were games or sacks of potatoes. Just a fact. They pay money to invest in the company and only look at money as a measure of success. Understandable.
- the majority of the customers these companies have, including Starcraft customers, do not know or care about the stuff we here are all mad about. That is why games they make sell at higher prices and they can even get away with high priced DLC.
- YOU want their product and they know that. Most of us here will huff and puff but still buy Starcraft 2. Remember MW2? yeah... We lost any kind of credibility after that fiasco.
Sonpeople like this dude are actually very good! He is doing an excellent job. Just the job we don't want him to do, but the one he was HIRED to do: make money for the shareholders.
It's called reality. At the end of the day, it's YOUR money that is driving ALL of this
lol that's true, if you ever played mafia wars on facebook, it's like...oh REALLY? yeah, uh huh...oh really? oh really? about all those terrible things that you can do to extort, exploit, and cheat people out of their money or whatever...but after a while of advancing through the game...it's easy to just start ignoring what the jobs are called and just clicking on do job...it must be the same with those higher ups, they just look at the the cash and leveling up that can be gained and go for it.
On May 30 2010 07:00 DigitalD[562] wrote: I have boycotted all activision games since I learned of some of there corporate practices. Kotics ravings didn't help either. I hope that I don't have to lump Blizzard in with Activision but I will if things keep going in the direction that they are.
i stopped supporting them just because they sucked. and it's apparently all because of Kotics
On May 30 2010 07:05 PrideNeverDies wrote: I always try to look objectively at both sides of the story and who knows the OP has a short on Activision stock.
It's called capitalism, don't hate it. Remember you can vote with your money.
Great idea. Everyone short Activision stock if SC2 comes out and they still refuse to listen. Profit for us, teach money grubbing slackers a lesson. WE HAVE THE MANPOWER!!!
What I don't get is how on earth this is connected to bnet2 being a total piece of shit. THEY WILL SELL MORE UNITS IF THE GAME HAS MORE FEATURES THAT PEOPLE ARE SPECIFICALLY ASK FOR. Even if the sole goal was to maximize profit with sc2 it wouldn't make sense to exclude chat rooms, cross realm, tournament features, clans, and possibly lan. What they don't seem to understand is that sc2 players and people who like competitive rts are not like fps or mmo/wow players; not enough people will be willing to pay for extra features which should be in the game at release to compensate for the smaller amount of units sold.
On May 30 2010 06:46 Level10Peon wrote: Activision has zero control over Blizzard, and neither entity is trying to make SCII some cheap money grab.
Pretty sure this guy is a troll
You all are looking for a target for your frustration, so you picked Activision. I agree, BNet 2.0 needs work, but at least have some rationality. Threads like this are not productive.
I AGREE!
(EXCEPT FOR THE PART THAT HIS RANT PROVIDED A WEALTH OF INFORMATION!)
On May 30 2010 06:49 AmstAff wrote: rofl im so dumb. i always hated EA cause they are money whores, but activison blizzard is even a bigger money whore. FUCK YOU EA FUCK YOU BLIZZARD i will go back to the roots and play on my old nintendo and atari.
I doubt that. I just think they're more proud of their greed than EA.
The best way to protest is to hurt their wallet is not by a boycott per se, but by giving them as much bad press as possible. If we are loud enough at some point it will be more economical for them to address the issues instead of ignoring us.
And lol at people who think because this guy is trying to make as much fast money as possible off of a game he's a brilliant capitalist. He's jeopardizing the quality of his own product. But hey we know that rich CEOs know better and always have great long-term plans for their businesses, right?
Yikes. Thanks for opening my eyes on this. It's funny howw it's so transparent and yet none of us know about it without someone writing up a huge research article on it.
On May 30 2010 07:34 Drowsy wrote: What I don't get is how on earth this is connected to bnet2 being a total piece of shit. THEY WILL SELL MORE UNITS IF THE GAME HAS MORE FEATURES THAT PEOPLE ARE SPECIFICALLY ASK FOR. Even if the sole goal was to maximize profit with sc2 it wouldn't make sense to exclude chat rooms, cross realm, tournament features, clans, and possibly lan. What they don't seem to understand is that sc2 players and people who like competitive rts are not like fps or mmo/wow players; not enough people will be willing to pay for extra features which should be in the game at release to compensate for the smaller amount of units sold.
they want drones, not hardcore players that buy one game once and stick with it for 20 years, paying nothing for the servers the game runs on. you might not realize this, but teamliquid is the hard-core of what the starcraft playerbase is. we probably are a minority. how else are you going to explain that despite all the criticism coming from here bnet 2.0 and sc2 still look like that? they are after casual players, not the top 10%. as long as there are players there will always be a top 10%. casuals have the numbers that pay, and casuals are the ones forming an audience for events. the top are only the players that this audience follows and is completely exchangable. :|
im really shallow here, but people shouldnt overestimate the value of tl for a company as huge as activision blizzard.
On May 30 2010 07:05 PrideNeverDies wrote: lol at all the people in here crying about activision blizzard, but will still end up buying the game
face it, you have nothing better to do in your lives than play their video games. you know it. bobby kotick knows it. don't be mad he chooses to exploit your social ineptness. it is why he is the alpha male CEO and you guys are the sheep.
I agree completely. People complain about this and that but you will still buy the game and your friends will buy the game. Then you'll continue to complain on bnet but still buy the expansions.
Look if you want to punish Activision then you have to punish their stock. How do you do this? Well DON'T BUY their games. But that won't happen right guys?
The OP was a good read but definitely one sided. I always try to look objectively at both sides of the story and who knows the OP has a short on Activision stock.
The only solution I see is if you guys buy the game/expansions and love blizzard so much then just get some ownership in the company. I'm sure you guys will start rooting for this guy because he's making you richer.
It's called capitalism, don't hate it. Remember you can vote with your money.
Buying ATVI stock instead of buying Starcraft 2 or WoW subscriptions might make a difference, but it will also give them money in the process. At the end of the day no one can do what we all want to do which is fire Bobby Kotdick from the company and sue him on multiple counts of mismanagement and wrongful dismissal - no severance package, no golden handshake, no red carpet. A swift kick in the butt and a lawsuit to boot.
It's not an either/or. You can buy the game and buy the stock if you're so inclined.
But fine if you feel so strongly about this dude and the direction he is taking Activision/Blizzard then SHORT the stock and profit from the eventual destruction of the brand names this man is committing. I have a feeling that you're right and he is doing the above. If this guy crashes and burns all these quality brands he's going to get fired but only the consumer has that power.
Again vote with your money.
edit: I forgot to add that if you're going to short the stock then don't buy the game unless you're hedging. o_O
If you read through that and thought that ANY of that was some sort of evil corporation thing, you are being childish. Blizzard and Activision are companies, they are not charities who have been ordained to make awesome games for you to play for the lowest price possible.
The level of entitlement displayed by the comments is seriously juvenile. I am sorry if I am sounding over the top but I really think some people need to learn a lesson sooner or later because this is the way the real world works. It is driven by money. If you want Blizzard or any company to produce a quality product, it needs to be profitable, it is as simple as that. It is like if you go to McDonalds and get all fussy that they aren't serving you a steak.
That is why it makes me sad that people are talking about boycotts, bad ratings, and things like that for SC2. If SC2 fails, you are not going to get starcraft 3. They will realize that making a game like this is too much work and not enough profit all because of a picky community who is too stingy to pay money for a game they will play for years. So they would just abandon future esports focused rts games.
Finally, lets assume for just a moment that SC2 is only half as good as SC 1, and is only the most competitive rts in the world for 5 years. Are you really not willing to pay $180 for a game that you play for 5 years? Like seriously? Even if it is not as good as BW doesn't mean it isn't awesome and isn't worth you putting your money into if you really value an rts made for high level play.
On May 30 2010 07:05 PrideNeverDies wrote: lol at all the people in here crying about activision blizzard, but will still end up buying the game
face it, you have nothing better to do in your lives than play their video games. you know it. bobby kotick knows it. don't be mad he chooses to exploit your social ineptness. it is why he is the alpha male CEO and you guys are the sheep.
I agree completely. People complain about this and that but you will still buy the game and your friends will buy the game. Then you'll continue to complain on bnet but still buy the expansions.
Look if you want to punish Activision then you have to punish their stock. How do you do this? Well DON'T BUY their games. But that won't happen right guys?
The OP was a good read but definitely one sided. I always try to look objectively at both sides of the story and who knows the OP has a short on Activision stock.
The only solution I see is if you guys buy the game/expansions and love blizzard so much then just get some ownership in the company. I'm sure you guys will start rooting for this guy because he's making you richer.
It's called capitalism, don't hate it. Remember you can vote with your money.
Buying ATVI stock instead of buying Starcraft 2 or WoW subscriptions might make a difference, but it will also give them money in the process. At the end of the day no one can do what we all want to do which is fire Bobby Kotdick from the company and sue him on multiple counts of mismanagement and wrongful dismissal - no severance package, no golden handshake, no red carpet. A swift kick in the butt and a lawsuit to boot.
It's not an either/or. You can buy the game and buy the stock if you're so inclined.
But fine if you feel so strongly about this dude and the direction he is taking Activision/Blizzard then SHORT the stock and profit from the eventual destruction of the brand names this man is committing. I have a feeling that you're right and he is doing the above. If this guy crashes and burns all these quality brands he's going to get fired but only the consumer has that power.
Again vote with your money.
You're forgetting the other option we have in a capitalist society, which is to hurt their wallets by giving them as much bad press as possible. It's been proven to work as long as we can organize and show solidarity.
On May 30 2010 06:29 Mortality wrote: Loved this article. Glad there are citations too.
So is there anybody who still thinks that any change from KeSPA is a good one? I don't like the potential here of going from bad management (as KeSPA currently is -- they've done a lot for e-sports historically, but they are too controlling these days) to worse.
uhm...GomTV is better than kespa so...it's cool by me.
On May 30 2010 06:11 pieisamazing wrote: holy what the fuck. i had no idea someone so disgusting could exist.
lol. ah man...wow. you need to read more history.
On May 30 2010 08:08 Koffiegast wrote: I knew about some parts, but.... this much and this dramatic...dear sweet mother of god what happened to the game industry.
it didn't occur to you that it was going down the crapper when ...nevermind.
Thanks for collecting all this -- I'm glad this was posted.
For us "oldtimers" who were there when Blizzard earned their initial positive reputation. As in picked up a copy of diablo 1, or warcraft 1, or starcraft 1 originally etc.. I think we can really see the downturn that has occured. Not that you need to have that experience to see the change, it just makes it slightly more sad maybe.
Saying that activision has no effect on blizzard's practices is just taking in the smoke their blowing our way. It's just a total shift in paradigm towards profit obviously.
I actually think sc2 is in pretty good shape, but I believe the game might not be released without another delay if we were still dealing with the old blizzard due to b.net mostly and some polish. As i've said before blaming previous delays on b.net is a total scapegoat though.
However the release is timed perfectly to be their anchor for their next quarterly statement. Which all businesses must consider, but it would be better for us if the dev's knew more about "bed sheets" maybe than balance sheets.
Rose-colored glasses or not it's pretty hard to look at this and not see that an impact has been made.
On May 30 2010 06:29 Mortality wrote: Loved this article. Glad there are citations too.
So is there anybody who still thinks that any change from KeSPA is a good one? I don't like the potential here of going from bad management (as KeSPA currently is -- they've done a lot for e-sports historically, but they are too controlling these days) to worse.
uhm...GomTV is better than kespa so...it's cool by me.
And what are your reasons for that? A corporation made specifically for the safe running of esports (eg, they uncovered a lot of the progamer scandal I think, they make sure the progamer's have safe income, and so on) against a single company which will, if the change by Blizzard goes ahead, have complete monopoly rights over the whole of SC1 and SC2 esports. What one is better? And don't say one of your reasons is that GOM has English casting, there won't be any games to cast and the quality of the games will decrease because progamers will have to have part time jobs alongside their gaming.
On May 30 2010 07:45 petered wrote: The level of entitlement displayed by the comments is seriously juvenile. I am sorry if I am sounding over the top but I really think some people need to learn a lesson sooner or later because this is the way the real world works. It is driven by money. If you want Blizzard or any company to produce a quality product, it needs to be profitable, it is as simple as that. It is like if you go to McDonalds and get all fussy that they aren't serving you a steak.
There's a difference between the necessity to operate profitable and the exploitation of every potential profit. And this is where stock-markets and shareholders come into play. The fact that the world today is so damn totally driven by money doesn't mean that it must or should be this way.
By the way, it isn't all that bad. There are, in every section of art, small independent studios, which operate profitable but not for the sake of profit. Too bad Blizzard isn't amongst them anymore.
On May 30 2010 07:45 petered wrote: [...] The level of entitlement displayed by the comments is seriously juvenile. I am sorry if I am sounding over the top but I really think some people need to learn a lesson sooner or later because this is the way the real world works. It is driven by money. [...]
this is how capitalism works. we do have capitalism in the real world, but capitalism is not the real world. choices, values, purpose, priorities - these still come from human beings and not from money. a company can choose to make a good product or to go for maximized profit. capitalism can work against the people, but it can also be used to work for them, and thats how it should be. capitalism is a tool, not the driver.
On May 30 2010 07:48 motbob wrote: People making more money from their games??? Say it ain't so.
nothing wrong with that, but when they try to force more profit on consumer (us) by compromising the quality of their products or services, then we have a problem here...
especially when this website/community was founded on the passion and love for this game. sure people are gonna be pissed for getting shafted by the developers.
at least post something useful to the discussion without making urself sounds like a troll motbob.
On May 30 2010 07:45 petered wrote: If you read through that and thought that ANY of that was some sort of evil corporation thing, you are being childish. Blizzard and Activision are companies, they are not charities who have been ordained to make awesome games for you to play for the lowest price possible.
The level of entitlement displayed by the comments is seriously juvenile. I am sorry if I am sounding over the top but I really think some people need to learn a lesson sooner or later because this is the way the real world works. It is driven by money. If you want Blizzard or any company to produce a quality product, it needs to be profitable, it is as simple as that. It is like if you go to McDonalds and get all fussy that they aren't serving you a steak.
That is why it makes me sad that people are talking about boycotts, bad ratings, and things like that for SC2. If SC2 fails, you are not going to get starcraft 3. They will realize that making a game like this is too much work and not enough profit all because of a picky community who is too stingy to pay money for a game they will play for years. So they would just abandon future esports focused rts games.
Finally, lets assume for just a moment that SC2 is only half as good as SC 1, and is only the most competitive rts in the world for 5 years. Are you really not willing to pay $180 for a game that you play for 5 years? Like seriously? Even if it is not as good as BW doesn't mean it isn't awesome and isn't worth you putting your money into if you really value an rts made for high level play.
1. Bad product 2. People complain 3. YOU tell people to stop complaining and keep giving them money 4. Still no good product, and never will be now company has it's money,
I don't think what you said made any sense whatsoever. But you do appear to be defending some half assed capitalism so that should not really come as a surprise.
On May 30 2010 06:29 Mortality wrote: Loved this article. Glad there are citations too.
So is there anybody who still thinks that any change from KeSPA is a good one? I don't like the potential here of going from bad management (as KeSPA currently is -- they've done a lot for e-sports historically, but they are too controlling these days) to worse.
uhm...GomTV is better than kespa so...it's cool by me.
And what are your reasons for that? A corporation made specifically for the safe running of esports (eg, they uncovered a lot of the progamer scandal I think, they make sure the progamer's have safe income, and so on) against a single company which will, if the change by Blizzard goes ahead, have complete monopoly rights over the whole of SC1 and SC2 esports. What one is better? And don't say one of your reasons is that GOM has English casting, there won't be any games to cast and the quality of the games will decrease because progamers will have to have part time jobs alongside their gaming.
gomtv released a very good version of LT(desert lost temple). i thought it was very impressive. i also liked their videos. but that was a super long time ago. when i think of kespa i don't really remember anything special that they did.
anyway when i do a google search for kespa i get sites that my ie is telling me may harm my computer. i don't get that when looking at the gomtv sites.
as for that inside knowledge advantage you have over me with korean economics, i got nothing to say to that. all i know is what i just told you. if kespa discovered those scandals, would it not have been better if they had prevented the scandals? i'm not saying i know much about either company. i just know that little bit. idk anything about difference between who does korean or english videos. i thought there was quite a bit of both. anyway i'm not bothered by language barriers like some people are. i'm a linguist.
It may be profitable, but it's not a high quality product. They could charge $30 for SC2 and still make money out of it. But they're charging $60 for it, while lacking a ton of stuff.
On May 30 2010 06:40 dcttr66 wrote: wow. yeah. i hope blizzard knows what they're getting themselves into...it's kinda like serving mengsk, eh?
Yes. Blizzard is behaving like a dictator instead of the company who is publishing what we want. They try to convince us that we dont want stupid stuff like LAN or chat channels or even customized maps ... and their brutal stance in Korea towards KeSPA shows that they are not interested in sharing.
On May 30 2010 06:51 Kinslayer wrote: Here is why stuff that people and companies like Activison does works:
- the companies are run by non gamers. The shareholders couldn't care less if these were games or sacks of potatoes. Just a fact. They pay money to invest in the company and only look at money as a measure of success. Understandable.
- the majority of the customers these companies have, including Starcraft customers, do not know or care about the stuff we here are all mad about. That is why games they make sell at higher prices and they can even get away with high priced DLC.
- YOU want their product and they know that. Most of us here will huff and puff but still buy Starcraft 2. Remember MW2? yeah... We lost any kind of credibility after that fiasco.
Sonpeople like this dude are actually very good! He is doing an excellent job. Just the job we don't want him to do, but the one he was HIRED to do: make money for the shareholders.
It's called reality. At the end of the day, it's YOUR money that is driving ALL of this
The bigger the companies the more money rules their thinking. It has ALWAYS been like this with small companies in the gaming industry which became big.
There is a little project somewhere called "Google will eat itself". They have a few internet pages with ads and for the revenue from these ads they buy Google shares. Eventually they will own Google ... in a few hundred years. Maybe we should try the same with Blizzard / Activision.
Personally I had been looking forward to SCII, but it gets ever more unlikely that I will buy the game ... not because it is bad when you are playing, but rather because of the BNet screw up and the dictatorial behaviour of Blizzard.
I seldom buy games at all nowadays. I will certainly not buy a game company who pays such a guy a (no doubt insanely inflated) salary. Activision Blizzard, fuck you.
Awesome write up good job completely agree on all points. I've been wow play many years now ever since announcement of Activision Blizzard been feeling the effects of this recently quit wow but im just trading it for another Activision Blizzard game SC2.
now come to think of it do u think the Kespa ordeal had anythink to do with Activision? I bet it does!
Excellent, excellent post. I really commend you for it. I'm afraid of what the future holds for Blizzard. Oh how thy might seem to have fallen. At this point I'm not concretely sure though this evidence points towards the fall of quality...
Ok, we get the facts. But what are YOU trying to say? Blizzard is bad? Boycott them? Be realistic, they control BW and SC2. Even if every single blizzard employee was a rapist pedo i'd still buy play the games.
This thread goes a long way towards portraying these men as evil, gentile, "anglo" men. That is the stereotype, of course. The reality is quite different. Start looking into these companies who only care about getting as rich as possible, and you'll start to discover a pattern. Here are some pictures of the people at the top; the people responsible. They don't exactly look like swedes to me. There's a common denominator here..
On May 30 2010 07:05 PrideNeverDies wrote: lol at all the people in here crying about activision blizzard, but will still end up buying the game
face it, you have nothing better to do in your lives than play their video games. you know it. bobby kotick knows it. don't be mad he chooses to exploit your social ineptness. it is why he is the alpha male CEO and you guys are the sheep.
I agree completely. People complain about this and that but you will still buy the game and your friends will buy the game. Then you'll continue to complain on bnet but still buy the expansions.
Look if you want to punish Activision then you have to punish their stock. How do you do this? Well DON'T BUY their games. But that won't happen right guys?
The OP was a good read but definitely one sided. I always try to look objectively at both sides of the story and who knows the OP has a short on Activision stock.
The only solution I see is if you guys buy the game/expansions and love blizzard so much then just get some ownership in the company. I'm sure you guys will start rooting for this guy because he's making you richer.
It's called capitalism, don't hate it. Remember you can vote with your money.
Buying ATVI stock instead of buying Starcraft 2 or WoW subscriptions might make a difference, but it will also give them money in the process. At the end of the day no one can do what we all want to do which is fire Bobby Kotdick from the company and sue him on multiple counts of mismanagement and wrongful dismissal - no severance package, no golden handshake, no red carpet. A swift kick in the butt and a lawsuit to boot.
It's not an either/or. You can buy the game and buy the stock if you're so inclined.
But fine if you feel so strongly about this dude and the direction he is taking Activision/Blizzard then SHORT the stock and profit from the eventual destruction of the brand names this man is committing. I have a feeling that you're right and he is doing the above. If this guy crashes and burns all these quality brands he's going to get fired but only the consumer has that power.
Again vote with your money.
You're forgetting the other option we have in a capitalist society, which is to hurt their wallets by giving them as much bad press as possible. It's been proven to work as long as we can organize and show solidarity.
Yes, stirring up some bad publicity would be a great way to state our point. It would be interesting to submit all this controversy to a news agency and see if it picks up any interest, as I for one would think that the novelty of a fanbase might actually make a decent article if it was sufficiently controversial. Activision-Blizzard is big enough, and frankly based on the first page, bad enough.
As for shorting the stock or hedging it in any way, I simply dont have enough leverage to make any effective play at doing that, but if someone does, go for it. I'd rather take the legal avenue on this one to be honest.
Oh and one might also want to avoid saying too wrongly about Kotdick et al less you find yourself on the wrong end of a slander suit. Like he said, he'll pay the lawyers more than the developers.
On May 30 2010 08:14 Perfect Balance wrote: This thread goes a long way towards portraying these men as evil, gentile, "anglo" men. That is the stereotype, of course. The reality is quite different. Start looking into these companies who only care about getting as rich as possible, and you'll start to discover a pattern. Here are some pictures of the people at the top; the people responsible. They don't exactly look like swedes to me. There's a common denominator here..
On May 30 2010 08:14 Perfect Balance wrote: This thread goes a long way towards portraying these men as evil, gentile, "anglo" men. That is the stereotype, of course. The reality is quite different. Start looking into these companies who only care about getting as rich as possible, and you'll start to discover a pattern. Here are some pictures of the people at the top; the people responsible. They don't exactly look like swedes to me. There's a common denominator here..
This is precisely why I dislike any threads focusing on Bobby Kotick or Activision in general. It always follows the same pattern:
- Talk about how much of a dick Bobby Kotick is - Compile long list of wrongdoings that are unrelated to Blizzard at all - Accuse Blizzard of being corrupted for offering 100% optional services that nobody has to pay for - Start bringing up Jewish conspiracies and inject anti-Semitism in an attempt to demonize Mike Morhaime and Blizzard in general
Seriously, I hate Kotick as much as the next person, but these threads really go into a bad direction. This certainly won't change Blizzard's opinions or decisions at all, and only bring out the absolute worst in gamers. It reflects badly on all of us when you start injecting anti-Semitism over a video game.
On May 30 2010 08:17 Sabu113 wrote: Do you really want to bring a racial element into this?
You sound like you're making a threat. Hahaha.
It's amazing how, in the politically correct world you americans live in, if ethnic iranians occupied ALL of your media and video game companies tomorrow, you wouldn't be able to point it out for fear of being labeled a "raciss". If those iranian CEO's also donated to causes that hurt your foreign policy and affected elections in their favor, you wouldn't be able to point it out.
You're wrong, it's not about racial elements at all, it's about the fact that all of these companies are dominated by a group that constitutes less than 2% of the total american population. It's amazing to me how so few americans realize this, and see WHY companies turn into money-making schemes when people of this group start inhabiting the positions of chairman and CEO.
Michael Morhaime belongs to this group. So does the CEO of Activision, and all the big video game companies (EA, Bethesda, etc), except Valve.
what a great post! very well researched and put together. my god man! have you thought about a career in journalism. it comes as no suprise this sort of thing is happening. you could see it in wow, you could see it in sc2, hell its everywhere.
fuck activision, i havent given them money in so long, pirated all my xbox games, computer games, and only paid the 15 dollar fee for wow
I should start by saying that Kotick is a class 1 asshole, as is EA's CEO John Riccitiello. They both have their own styles. While Riccitiello seems to prefer milking his companies for millions from shady deals while whispering sweet lies to gamers' ears, Kotick demonstrates some kind of superiority complex towards his employees and gamers.
That having been said, the OP is really biased and goes searching for all kinds of false evidence to support his argument. Let's look at some:
additional protection with the Blizzard Authenticator, so you’ll be safer against hackers for 6.50$ instead of for free
You do know this is an actual physical device that makes you input a code every time you log in to WoW or SC2? I certainly wouldn't like my subscription money being used to buy every player one (+replacements) just because some people want to run all the keyloggers they can find on the internet.
Blizzard Mobile is getting made for stupid phone sounds and pictures
Good thing that you put the word "stupid" there so we know how we should feel about that.
In the Thomas Tippl interview, you just highlight a few random words to make it seem all ominous. They are exploring opportunities? Certainly a sign of things to come...
Soon after, Kotick even believes, that with Activision Blizzard now being so big, he seems to have the right to dictate future consoles hardware design:
You make a pretty smooth leap from "influence" to "dictate." He also doesn't say anything about them claiming any right to do so.
Blizzard in a partnership with DIRECTV (and with increasing desire for more $$) provide Live Streaming of the Event for only 39.95$, although Streams from such events as the E3, Tokyo Gameshow or GamesCom are usually free…
I guess you didn't watch that, since there were 2 free streams that streamed the tournaments. Only the DirecTV produced stream cost money. As a side note the DirecTV stream was crap (didn't pay for it but many people livestreamed it until the streams were taken down.) Your choice of free stream with Artosis/Tasteless/bunny/djWheat or $40 stream with DirecTV commentators making jokes of nerds.
Anyway, the OP is mainly just every source of discontent with SC2 mixed with quotes from CEO/CFO-level interviews (surprise: finance department people talking to shareholders and investors talk about how to make the most money.) People are taking the "shitstorm" mentality Kennigit posted about to their hearts, but direct it at a place where Blizzard will read it, not TL forums.
On May 30 2010 08:07 pettter wrote: I seldom buy games at all nowadays. I will certainly not buy a game company who pays such a guy a (no doubt insanely inflated) salary. Activision Blizzard, fuck you.
He made $14,950,102 in 2008 only cause of his great work
On May 30 2010 07:14 GG.Win wrote: So I just read through all of that, and I have to say... if most of that is true, I seriously fear for the direction SC2 is taking. I hope its all just propaganda though.
It reminds me a lot of Origin Systems and EA.
Funny you should mention that, there was an Interview in 2004 (can't find the link right now) where a manager of Ultima Online/Origin was asked about the success of World of Warcraft and he said something along the lines of him believing that it would destroy Blizzard as a company. Activision mainly just merged with Blizz because of the financial success of World of Warcraft, much like EA bought Bioware and keeps pumping money into them, because they hope the new Star Wars MMO "The Old Republic" will finally be big after they failed with stuff like Sims Online or Warhammer Online.
On May 30 2010 08:26 Teddyman wrote: That having been said, the OP is really biased and goes searching for all kinds of false evidence to support his argument. Let's look at some:
I never pretended to not BE unbiased (in fact it should be pretty clear by my choice of pictures I am), it is a very hard thing to do if you see games you've been looking forward to for decades being ruined by business and marketing decisions, and my wording directly feeds to that end.
Concerning the Blizzard Authenticator, I know it is a physical device, but they could aswell have developed an Online system or a system in conjunction with a mail account for the encryption (providing said unique Token/Password that way), they instead chose to make it a "product" and market it, even though it should be one of their main concerns to keep their customers safe.
I'd go as far as to say, every written sentence or opinion is "biased" one way or another and it's really up to the reader to make out the truth or form their opinion based on different sources.
I don't know enough about corporate structure to point direct fingers but someone somewhere is a huge dickhead. Most people point the finger to Kotick...I'd lean towards pointing a finger at Vivendi for putting Kotick in charge. Warning incoming poorly written satire.
Activision Blizzard reminds me of a video game version of drug dealers. You want your maps I got your maps, 15 bucks...you wanna to change your name, I got that gimme like 10 dollas. "chat rooms?" man you don't want no chat rooms, I'll get you facebook. "I don't want facebook I want chat rooms" nah you don't man, you got UMS to play, did I tell you that I got UMS? 3 dollars each. "I don't want UMS man I want chat ro-...you know what nevermind what about community made 1v1 maps" I told you man I got your maps 15 bucks. "But they are community made, they should be free" Nah man we made that by giving you the tools to make it...we already had that idea and just hadn't used it yet...yeah that's it. "Do you offer any free services for the purchase of your game?" I told you man I got you facebook but other than that nah man nothings free if had my way I'd charge you to log on, charge you per match and add a monthly fee on that...damn that's a good idea.
Of course that's a bit hyperbolic in some cases and Activision has mostly milked Call of Duty franchise but the future business model of this company is down right scary. Anything seems chargeable and I wouldn't be surprised if later on down the line the expansions come out introducing new units to multiplayer becoming mandatory to play on battle.net and those that want to play on all regions end up having to sixty bucks nine times. Man I can't wait to watch free re-streams of their pay to watch GOM streams.
And now they are destroying the e-sport scene in Korea just for the sake of selling more Starcraft 2. Of course there's no need to support such evil, just cancel your sc2 order.
I'm all for making money but kotick sounds like the walmart of video games. I'm holding out on buying sc2 for as long as possible and I really hope someone is able to make some kind of third party program to get around battle.net 2.0. The only problem is if someone like iccup does do this blizzard would sue them and make them take it down.
Wow... i'm really sickened. I don't even know how to respond. I've been playing video games for around 10 years and this is the first time I've actually given any thought to stopping playing video games entirely.
Obviously the investors love this guy because he will squeeze every penny out of the games he's overseeing, but wow it looks like he's going to squeeze the fun and the life out of them in the process. This really sickened me.
On May 30 2010 07:05 PrideNeverDies wrote: I always try to look objectively at both sides of the story and who knows the OP has a short on Activision stock.
It's called capitalism, don't hate it. Remember you can vote with your money.
Great idea. Everyone short Activision stock if SC2 comes out and they still refuse to listen. Profit for us, teach money grubbing slackers a lesson. WE HAVE THE MANPOWER!!!
Lol. Noone with money would actually short Activision stock. Half their consumers are mom's and dad's buying for children so they don't know any better. The other half is fucking retards that you can kick in the balls time after time and they will still buy your product and scream 'BLIZZARD IS THE BEST COMPANY EVA!'.
On May 30 2010 07:05 PrideNeverDies wrote: I always try to look objectively at both sides of the story and who knows the OP has a short on Activision stock.
It's called capitalism, don't hate it. Remember you can vote with your money.
Great idea. Everyone short Activision stock if SC2 comes out and they still refuse to listen. Profit for us, teach money grubbing slackers a lesson. WE HAVE THE MANPOWER!!!
Lol. Noone with money would actually short Activision stock. Half their consumers are mom's and dad's buying for children so they don't know any better. The other half is fucking retards that you can kick in the balls time after time and they will still buy your product and scream 'BLIZZARD IS THE BEST COMPANY EVA!'.
What you can do is rate the game, which is free, easy, effective, legal and your right as a gamer.
Poll: Would you give SC2 a one star amazon rating to protest BNET?
Yes (6508)
83%
No (1331)
17%
7839 total votes
Your vote: Would you give SC2 a one star amazon rating to protest BNET?
This is the sad truth of the gaming industry. Developers are very much at odds with marketing and need to churn out what is a sure sell - often leaving innovation and risk behind.
Big fish like Blizzard have already set a strong example and can continue to explore where their creativity takes them, but many of the smaller companies mentioned in the article (the ones laid off or closed) don't get anywhere near the satisfaction that their talents deserve.
to be fair guys, Blizzard has always produced games of exceptional qualities, the three main franchise that they made are AWESOME games! and i have no doubt in my mind that SC2 will be just as awesome in terms of gameplay...
however, the problem we're having now is the platform (Battlenet 2.0) this game will be played on is forced down our throats. i WANT to play SC2, but i don't want to be forced to play SC2 on this poorly designed platform, the community has made it clear enough of what reasonable improvement we want, and yet all of us are getting ignored. thats what the recent uproar is about...
On May 30 2010 09:15 Spiffeh wrote: i don't get mad at people very often except for Bobby Kotick
It's official. If Blizzard has become corrupted by the insanity of the gaming industry, Nintendo will be the only games company left that actually does things right.
I really hope their disruption of the industry is successful. Because games companies as they work now needs to be destroyed.
On May 30 2010 09:19 KungKras wrote: It's official. If Blizzard has become corrupted by the insanity of the gaming industry, Nintendo will be the only games company left that actually does things right.
I really hope their disruption of the industry is successful. Because games companies as they work now needs to be destroyed.
Thank you for your diligent work. Whenever I read what the people's responses on Blizzard forums are, I rage incredibly hard. We, the people of Starcraft and Gaming, are trying to remedy a fault and wrong, only to keep on being obstructed by short minded "casuals" as Blizzard would like us to coin them. They are not casuals. They are the newer generation of gamers who do not understand what customer service and actual inspiration (requirements that any company should (but due to corporate greed and short-sightedness will not) deliver) has been an integral part as to the reason why early video gaming had taken off.
It was dedication of small struggling companies trying to make a name for themselves that brought innovation to the playing field. The most typical example being Nintendo, which started as a card making company (among others) and wound up being one of the most well known (and liked/disliked, as fame does to any company) gaming companies to still exist.
Voices do matter. If one person believes oh my opinion does not matter, why bother, then you have just contributed to the flow that a greedy company wants. By becoming one of those accepting ones, that in fact will harm the product even more if the company thinks they can get away with it. Of course if a game is good, and you cry about minor faults, that's a whole entirely different matter.
Now we are speaking of a major experience, the Multiplayer experience! If they force us to buy down-loadable maps like CoD, or say Halo, then they will further restrict us when they feel they can tread the water more and more dangerously. (They HAVE been doing that, look at region restrictions, (so they can better control monetary profit) No Lan, (Trying to prevent pirating- fail) No chat rooms (So you have to use FACEFAIL, so they earn profits from the clicks on the site!)) NOW is the time to make our voices heard, it is not too late!
Not sure if this is the best place for a 'first post', but woah. There is an intense amount of rage (and polls about rage) here. True; this dude is a douche, but what about the people stoking the fire?
I agree that Blizzard broke my heart when I read that article - and nobody will trust them as before - but they really have labored for years to iron out problems. Would Queen, Mule and Chrono even exist had they not tried 2 other solutions to a problem they didn't even realize - or massively underestimate?
Kotic is truly an evil man, and BNet 2 is seriously misguided, but those who are stoking the fire (I've seen that 'would you give SC2 a one star rating' poll about 20 times already..) seem just as bad. An emotional reaction is understandable, but shouting again and again and again the same thing..?
On May 30 2010 09:19 KungKras wrote: It's official. If Blizzard has become corrupted by the insanity of the gaming industry, Nintendo will be the only games company left that actually does things right.
I really hope their disruption of the industry is successful. Because games companies as they work now needs to be destroyed.
Nintendo? Are you freakin serious? No, just valve, and some non-mainstream developers like CDproJekt Red, Arena-net, S2gaming,and a few others.. And indie devs ofc.
On May 30 2010 09:19 KungKras wrote: It's official. If Blizzard has become corrupted by the insanity of the gaming industry, Nintendo will be the only games company left that actually does things right.
I really hope their disruption of the industry is successful. Because games companies as they work now needs to be destroyed.
What about Valve?
I haven't really followed Valve's business, so I can't have a fully educated opinion about them. But they did give us Portal for free, and that's awesome. I just haven't kept. Still, even if I say that Nintendo and Valve are the only sane games companies left, even with twice the number of sane games companies, there still aren't a lot of them out there.
Great write up. Its just depressing what happens when a company forgets what made them popular. I have no problem with a corporation trying to get paid, but only if they continue to produce the same quality games they had in the past.
The 1-star for Amazon is actually a great idea. The problem for a site like TL is that they are the most commited fanbase but because they're relatively small and will buy the game anyway they don't have any too much leverage. It's a problem in general how to keep ever-larger corporations responsive to customers and the proper way to do that is to organize as a community and find a way to hurt them financially. That's why I don't think the Amazon 1-star thing is childish, it's adult rather: a way to use the community's power against a corporation in a completely valid and legal way.
I do think it would be a good idea for TL.net to expand on things like this if some basic b.net 2.0 problems aren't fixed come release though, so it becomes organized and it's visible who is responsible.
edit: this thread is still ridiculous and merely stirring up anger with ominous out-of-context facts.
On May 30 2010 09:19 KungKras wrote: It's official. If Blizzard has become corrupted by the insanity of the gaming industry, Nintendo will be the only games company left that actually does things right.
I really hope their disruption of the industry is successful. Because games companies as they work now needs to be destroyed.
What about Valve?
I haven't really followed Valve's business, so I can't have a fully educated opinion about them. But they did give us Portal for free, and that's awesome. I just haven't kept. Still, even if I say that Nintendo and Valve are the only sane games companies left, even with twice the number of sane games companies, there still aren't a lot of them out there.
How the hell is Nintendo sane? You mean the ones who characterized people who play SMSB competitively as "Creepy people with no lives", people who play RPG's "People who sit in their basement with no friends", and made the nintendo Wii which had less functionality and technology then its predecessor except /waggle? You mean the guys that require you to pay a hefty sum to make their controller work as was advertised in their marketing?
You mean the guys who characterized their own game Ocarina of Time as "too hard and inaccessible", and the guys who put metroid on rails, the freakin antithesis of why metroid 2d was cool?
Praise game programmers selling their souls to corporate scum and becoming slave #12345 of 'I don't give a shit as long as it makes $' company...
Whoever played 'The Witcher' and read the paper article found on the body of the 1st leader of salamandra knows this : "We... Gamers... For... Gamers... They... No... Longer... Roll... The... Dragoon... Dices !"
On May 30 2010 09:41 Santriel wrote: Praise game programmers selling their souls to corporate scum and becoming slave #12345 of 'I don't give a shit as long as it makes $' company...
On May 30 2010 09:19 KungKras wrote: It's official. If Blizzard has become corrupted by the insanity of the gaming industry, Nintendo will be the only games company left that actually does things right.
I really hope their disruption of the industry is successful. Because games companies as they work now needs to be destroyed.
Nintendo? Are you freakin serious? No, just valve, and some non-mainstream developers like CDproJekt Red, Arena-net, Obsidian Entertainment, S2gaming,and a few others.. And indie devs ofc.
Explain to me why I shouldn't be serious. Nintendo is the only games company I know of that grew big, and retained the magic. have you ever seen them whine about used game sales and the like? Have you ever seen them being profitable by exploiting their customers à la Activision? No, they just make their games and let the games speak for themselves.
On May 30 2010 09:19 KungKras wrote: It's official. If Blizzard has become corrupted by the insanity of the gaming industry, Nintendo will be the only games company left that actually does things right.
I really hope their disruption of the industry is successful. Because games companies as they work now needs to be destroyed.
Nintendo? Are you freakin serious? No, just valve, and some non-mainstream developers like CDproJekt Red, Arena-net, Obsidian Entertainment, S2gaming,and a few others.. And indie devs ofc.
Explain to me why I shouldn't be serious. Nintendo is the only games company I know of that grew big, and retained the magic. have you ever seen them whine about used game sales and the like? Have you ever seen them being profitable by exploiting their customers à la Activision? No, they just make their games and let the games speak for themselves.
Responded to that. Nintendo is one of the most oppressive studios in the industry. I'd literally put them with Activision. I'd choose Rockstar, EA, capcom, sega, whatever over nintendo. Search "Nintendo Issues cease and desist". They've shut down pretty much every single fan creation related to their products including several fan amateur movies, etc, which are nothing but works of fandom.
I'm starting to be more and more convinced hopeful that Frank Pearce just went out and straight-up said what was going on in a bid to get stuff done the Blizzard way again by raising hell among the community about what's actually going on.
Unfortunately, even if that's the case it looks like it'll be more likely to get his ass fired, and then a bunch of lawsuits to try to figure out whether Kotick actually had the authority to fire him.
On May 30 2010 09:37 Mothxal wrote: The 1-star for Amazon is actually a great idea. The problem for a site like TL is that they are the most commited fanbase but because they're relatively small and will buy the game anyway they don't have any too much leverage. It's a problem in general how to keep ever-larger corporations responsive to customers and the proper way to do that is to organize as a community and find a way to hurt them financially. That's why I don't think the Amazon 1-star thing is childish, it's adult rather: a way to use the community's power against a corporation in a completely valid and legal way.
I do think it would be a good idea for TL.net to expand on things like this if some basic b.net 2.0 problems aren't fixed come release though, so it becomes organized and it's visible who is responsible.
Did you vote?
Poll: Would you give SC2 a one star amazon rating to protest BNET?
Yes (6508)
83%
No (1331)
17%
7839 total votes
Your vote: Would you give SC2 a one star amazon rating to protest BNET?
On May 30 2010 09:19 KungKras wrote: It's official. If Blizzard has become corrupted by the insanity of the gaming industry, Nintendo will be the only games company left that actually does things right.
I really hope their disruption of the industry is successful. Because games companies as they work now needs to be destroyed.
What about Valve?
I haven't really followed Valve's business, so I can't have a fully educated opinion about them. But they did give us Portal for free, and that's awesome. I just haven't kept. Still, even if I say that Nintendo and Valve are the only sane games companies left, even with twice the number of sane games companies, there still aren't a lot of them out there.
How the hell is Nintendo sane? You mean the ones who characterized people who play SMSB competitively as "Creepy people with no lives", people who play RPG's "People who sit in their basement with no friends", and made the nintendo Wii which had less functionality and technology then its predecessor except /waggle? You mean the guys that require you to pay a hefty sum to make their controller work as was advertised in their marketing?
You mean the guys who characterized their own game Ocarina of Time as "too hard and inaccessible", and the guys who put metroid on rails, the freakin antithesis of why metroid 2d was cool?
But yea, we're probably getting OT now.
I meant business wise, about how they just makes games and let the games speak for them. But yea, we're getting off topic.
EDIT: I'll happily continue the debate in PMs though.
On May 30 2010 09:37 Mothxal wrote: The 1-star for Amazon is actually a great idea.
It's not.
It's acting like butthurt babies.
The ratings will just get deleted without a comment and 99% of the people crying now will guy the game anyway. And why shouldn't they? It's a good game.
I don't think I'm ever going to BUY an activision title again. Really good post with alot of good things mentioned. They JUST want money. They really don't care about the fans whatsoever.
On May 30 2010 09:48 Musoeun wrote: I'm starting to be more and more convinced hopeful that Frank Pearce just went out and straight-up said what was going on in a bid to get stuff done the Blizzard way
Translation: Fuck teh "beloved communitah", we bee doin' patch in 3 years w/ new box costing $60 fo' 3 new unitz n' a half-assed campain', LULZ !
On May 30 2010 09:37 Mothxal wrote: The 1-star for Amazon is actually a great idea.
It's not.
It's acting like butthurt babies.
The ratings will just get deleted without a comment and 99% of the people crying now will guy the game anyway. And why shouldn't they? It's a good game.
That uses a gimped interface. And if you were an old time Blizzard fan, you know that people expect perfection from Blizzard. An imperfect game is not something that people became Blizzard fans to buy.
On May 30 2010 09:50 FliedLice wrote: The ratings will just get deleted without a comment and 99% of the people crying now will guy the game anyway. And why shouldn't they? It's a good game.
Yah and if we voted on all the major gaming sites? And if we gave varying scores? Are they going to delete all 2's and 3's? Maybe theyll delete everything below 10 :p
Imagine what happens when the metacritic score starts goes down. Do you know how many gamers base thier purchasing decisions at least in part on those scores?
this kind of policy and business won't live in a entertainment business. I'm sure activision blizzard is going to either crash and burn or be completely reworked and management changed at some point. Needless to say I'm going ubisoft and ea games for the most part now, with some other studios on the side (rockstar, valve, gearbox, bethesda) only getting sc2 out of necessity, because as much as I want to boycott activision I want sc2 more.
As someone going through school heading to the game industry the policies of this company scare me, their vaguely reminiscent of the policies of apple with the iphone/itouch.
Long-term gamers don't let companies who advertise "listening to the community" get away with the kind of shit Blizzard is dragging us thru right now. It's not worth a company most of us known about and loved since diablo or warcraft ONE. We're definitely NOT letting them get away with this.
See, the whole "listening to the community" thing was going on until W3 and the early days of WoW. Back then they ACTIVELY read forums, get fan opinion, picked people to test their shit etc... Nowadays ? Fuck'em all ! We're making our bullshit systems and to hell with everything else !
Back then, they responded tangibly to critics on their forums. Nowadays ? "olulzulz Bnet 2 so awsom we roxckz me mod delete your baby post lulz"... From participation to censorship of (not even inflammatory) opinions ? Fuck'em !
The few gaming companies that actively went the (current) blizzard way got to severely regret it. Ask EA, Valve, NcSoft or even ID to some extent.
Now, internet "2.0" having opened the gates to every dumbfuck 12 years old makes it harder for us from the 80-90's but we're not gone. In fact we have more influence than all of your kiddie Wow-paladin generation mishaps.
Long-term gamers don't let companies who advertise "listening to the community" get away with the kind of shit Blizzard is dragging us thru right now. It's not worth a company most of us known about and loved since diablo or warcraft ONE. We're definitely NOT letting them get away with this.
See, the whole "listening to the community" thing was going on until W3 and the early days of WoW. Back then they ACTIVELY read forums, get fan opinion, picked people to test their shit etc... Nowadays ? Fuck'em all ! We're making our bullshit systems and to hell with everything else !
The few gaming companies that actively went the (current) blizzard way got to severely regret it. Ask EA, Valve or even ID to some extent.
Now, internet "2.0" having opened the gates to every dumbfuck 12 years old makes it harder for us from the 80-90's but we're not gone. In fact we have more influence than all of your kiddie Wow-paladin generation mishaps.
A true gamer, I was gaming since I was five, and fourteen years is enough to tell me what companies I should trust, and what companies need correction. Gaming was never this businesslike (hurr hurr, get the bad pun?)
Amazing article, a lot of research was put into this.
This just shows how everything goes from bad to worse in the kind of unrestricted capitalism we live in today, the video game industry being no different. The investors want money, they will get money, if destroying a franchise is more profitable than keeping it alive, they will do it. if they want to milk it for as much profit as they can in a short period of time (like EA did with CnC) they will do it. What needs to be understood that the need for profit never coincides with the needs of the people, in this case, the need of the community (gamers/fans).
I just can't imagine how tournaments will be run with the B-net2.0 forced platform. Imagine hosting a tourney in a gaming cafe, impossible now. How will WCG and other tourneys be run? Renting a B-net 2.0 emulator from blizz? All these fees that (if they get introduced, and they probably will) will kill off a lot of events that are common in communities, unless you are a big tournament with sponsors and advertisment income, you won't be able to afford hosting a tourney, or anything else...
...I lost my chain of thought and for that i apologise, I'm just utterly disgusted after reading the article.
I'm really kind of curious how many Starcraft II preorders have been canceled in the last 2 or 3 days. I'm pretty sure that I've seen ~200 people claiming to have canceled a preorder on TL.net. I realize we're the diehards here, but if even 10% of TL's reaction is going on other places, that's going to speak to AB where they apparently think it counts: the wallet.
A tremendous post! That part about possible in-game advertising was probably most disturbing of all (and it was all disturbing). If they try that, they will sink deeper then I thought possible.
On May 30 2010 10:06 mortus wrote: A tremendous post! That part about possible in-game advertising was probably most disturbing of all (and it was all disturbing). If they try that, they will sink deeper then I thought possible.
I'll take in-game advertising over terrible interface any day.
On May 30 2010 09:59 Santriel wrote: In fact we have more influence than all of your kiddie Wow-paladin generation mishaps.
awwww :3
how is EA any different? sure they came out as the big saviour after the whole MW2 thing with BFBC2 still having dedicated servers... Still they are whoring around with their DLC bigtime and milked their C&C cow all the way to the end
and i'd say the kiddie paladins from wow are all they need to make a huge huge load of money and still be able to just shit right in your face
In fact we have more influence than all of your kiddie Wow-paladin generation mishaps.
No, the minority never has more influence over the majority, no matter how right they are or how dumb the majority is. Thank you capitalism and democracy!
On May 30 2010 09:19 KungKras wrote: It's official. If Blizzard has become corrupted by the insanity of the gaming industry, Nintendo will be the only games company left that actually does things right.
I really hope their disruption of the industry is successful. Because games companies as they work now needs to be destroyed.
What about Valve?
I haven't really followed Valve's business, so I can't have a fully educated opinion about them. But they did give us Portal for free, and that's awesome. I just haven't kept. Still, even if I say that Nintendo and Valve are the only sane games companies left, even with twice the number of sane games companies, there still aren't a lot of them out there.
- Bethesda is still producing quality games in the fallout and elder scrolls universe, along with brink later this year which looks promising. - Gearbox is just about the only company I've seen give DLC thats more than worth it's price tag in borderlands. - Ubisoft is still being smart, creating independant games and creating sequels that are sensible, and not 20 spinoffs driving the game into the ground. - ATLUS is still producing amazing rpg's as was seen with demon's souls - mondo media is working on little big planet 2 which so far is looking revolutionary, and could change the way map editing on consoles works - rockstar is starting to reform from making its more tasteless games that emphasized on murder, extortion, and drug smuggling along with a dash of smut. Red dead redemption is a brighter change, although still somewhat retaining undesirable aspects from gta.
I wouldn't particularily consider nintendo sane with the way the wii is. The console should have compatibility with actual controllers that each game can be played with so that user preference can choose to use the remote or a controller. (super smach bros: brawl was smart enough to do this)
Very nice post. What happened to music and movies is happening to gaming. Corporations don't mind if you beg or try to be "calm and reasonable". Making you "calm and reasonable" about getting buttfucked is one of their PR tactics. They would sell you your own shit in a bag if they could. You would have to buy piss separately.
People who get angry about something might act and if they do that is power. Power is the only thing big companies listen to. So yes shitstorms do help if they are visible. Praying and keeping the faith only make the expansion packs suck too.
For whatever its worth, I won't be buying SC2 (or Diablo 3 for that matter). Obviously as an individual I don't matter at all. That said I do think that the SC community is more uniquely positioned than most gaming communities to actually make a dent and be heard.
I don't want to make all the broad, sweeping, idealic and revolutionary statements that people like to spout on the internet, but there are absolutely enough people in this community to make a difference. Take the original post in this thread and post it everywhere. Do the same with the Frozen Arbiter thread on the state of battlenet 2.0.
As crazy as it sounds in this age of the internet, write a letter, on paper, to Blizzard. Bombard them with stuff that, if enough people do it, will force them to deal with it in some way, force a response.
I'm pessimistic and cynical and I doubt enough people will take these steps to make a difference. But I do believe there are enough people who care about these issues that we could make a difference if we tried.
On May 30 2010 10:11 Half wrote: No, the minority never has more influence over the majority, no matter how right they are or how dumb the majority is. Thank you capitalism and democracy!
I didn't mean it in terms of "textual majority" but in terms of input. Long-term gamers generally have WAY SUPERIOR technical and coding knowledge most 'nowadays gamers' have.
I mean... Who here can say they were part of the neogeo emulation scene ? 3-5 people out of 100 ? This happened in 1996...
If gamers back then could make a company like ID bend over, shut up, integrate anti-hacks and community-related suggestions over the threat that their sales were going to TANK (and ask them, they did anyways), NOTHING can stand.
Not blizzard, not battlenet 2, not anything.
People rooting for the mediocre side here get it wrong: Gaming is dominated by gamers. If gamers these days had ANY idea what a good game ACTUALLY IS (fun to play vs "olulz amazing grafx must be good"), there wouldn't be such giant fuckups as Bnet 0.5.
Gaming became a mass-consumption thing colonized by kidiots starving for real life experiences. I miss the days where just playing Blood or Quake for more than 3 hours a WEEK made you a no-life geek because... well... you had to be somewhat 'above the norm' to get it all; Random kidiots couldn't just hop into gamespy and hope to play; you had to LEARN THE FUCKING GAME FIRST, ALL BY YOURSELF !
On May 30 2010 10:11 Half wrote: No, the minority never has more influence over the majority, no matter how right they are or how dumb the majority is. Thank you capitalism and democracy!
I didn't mean it in terms of "textual majority" but in terms of input. Long-term gamers generally have WAY SUPERIOR technical and coding knowledge most 'nowadays gamers' have.
I mean... Who here can say they were part of the neogeo emulation scene ? 3-5 people out of 100 ? This happened in 1996...
If gamers back then could make a company like ID bend over, shut up, integrate anti-hacks and community-related suggestions over the threat that their sales were going to TANK (and ask them, they did anyways), NOTHING can stand.
Not blizzard, not battlenet 2, not anything.
People rooting for the mediocre side here get it wrong: Gaming is dominated by gamers. If gamers these days had ANY idea what a good game ACTUALLY IS (fun to play vs "olulz amazing grafx must be good"), there wouldn't be such giant fuckups as Bnet 0.5.
Gaming became a mass-consumption thing colonized by kidiots starving for real life experiences. I miss the days where just playing Blood or Quake for more than 3 hours a WEEK made you a no-life geek because... well... you had to be somewhat 'above the norm' to get it all; Random kidiots couldn't just hop into gamespy and hope to play; you had to LEARN THE FUCKING GAME FIRST, ALL BY YOURSELF !
Honestly I'm in agreement with the second part, but realize that isn't the minority beating the majority, thats the minority banding together while the majority remained indifferent. It's not like the majority didn't want anti-hacks.
Which is the case in chat channels for b-net 2.0. Chat channels aren't against the interests of the majority, just irrelevant. That's why I still have hope.
i applaud you for this post. so insightful, back up by many facts. oh my god this makes me want to puke though. OP, is one quality poster!! MAD PROPS! and people who keep saying activition has no impact on blizzard operations. ROFL MY ASS!@
Jesus, I believe that tl is making the finest posts on a long time. This sums up this nagging feeling we've all had, with quotes and research. Bravo to you. I really don't like the way blizz is going, which pains me to say, because they were one of the last companies I enjoyed heartily.
Oh god I almost wish I had the willpower to boycott SC2 since I completely disagree with activision blizzard's decisions on BNet 2.0, but I'm going to buy the game nonetheless...
I stopped buying/playing most online games except for Blizzard games a few years ago since Blizzard was the last "honest" company out there. They focused on just making really good games.
But hearing this only saddens me. What saddens me the most is that there is a guy so high up there who is absolutely determined to keep this up. It just feels like there is nothing we can possibly do. And that saddens me
Well by law if they are a publicly traded company for them to do anything besides aim for highest profits would be illegal as it goes against the interest of the investors/stock holders, same shit happen to dryers company when they went public.
Although i don't think blizzard is publicly traded i know activision is.
First, I'd like to commend you for taking the time to write your thoughts up in a clear and readable manner, do a reasonable amount of research, and not just flame Blizzard.
However, that being said, your post is not at all convincing.
While you make no explicit argument in your post, it's pretty obvious what thesis you are trying to support. If I had to put it into words, it would be that "Blizzard has been negatively affected by the merger with Activision. They are now greedy like Activision." However, this thesis is totally and completely unsupported by the evidence you provide.
First of all, if you want to show that Blizzard is greedier now than they were, you have to provide some point of contrast; in other words, to show that there is a significant difference between the way Blizzard acted before the merger, and the way they act now, you have to provide a picture of what they were like before the merger that contrasts with the way they are now. Now, certainly you can reasonably assume (at least in this case) that most people know Blizzard's reputation, and are able to provide these contrasts themselves...but this does weaken what you're trying to say. And I think you'd find, if you actually looked at what Blizzard was like before the merger, you'd find more commonalities than you think.
Besides that, though, the timeline you provide simply does not support your argument. 3/4ths of the things on the timeline are solely related to Activision and Bobby Kotick, which is great if you're trying to prove that Bobby Kotick is a jerk, but not so good if you're trying to prove that Blizzard are now greedy, uncaring bastards.
Him talking about wanting to mess with Blizzard is better, but still proves nothing, since most of the things he talks about simply haven't happened; which actually works directly against your thesis. There is no in-game advertising; there is pretty much no monetizing of Bnet whatsoever, and the services that Blizzard talks about in another quote are hardly unreasonable.
Oh, and there's the interview with the Activision guy where he talks about how Blizzard is going to operate pretty much as they have before now, and that they're going to be fairly independent. You seem to think the "fairly independent" is some kind of contradiction with the rest of the statement, but if you knew how Blizzard has operated in the past, you wouldn't be. For most of Blizzard's existence, they've been owned by some other corporation; these corporations have varied in the amount they left Blizzard alone and the amount they meddled with her, but they've always been interested in the bottom line, and they've always had some degree of oversight over her. In general, though, Blizzard has been "fairly independent" for quite a long time.
Most of the information you provide, then, is superfluous.
Let's talk, then, about the three or four actual relevant pieces of information you bring up about Blizzard's actions after the merger, information you arrange in such a fashion as to suggest that Blizzard is acting in a greedy or uncaring fashion, with the implication that this is due to Bobby Kotick and Activision: (1)WoW paid stuff. (2): Starcraft 2 being a Trilogy. (3): No LAN (4): Map Marketplace (5): Blizzcon ticket prices being raised (?) (6): Facebook integration.
Let's go through these one by one, shall we?
(1): WoW.
Okay...I'm going to be very clear with this. Adding paid stuff to WoW makes Blizzard money. Blizzard is a corporation, whose main purpose is to make money. These paid things are features, meaning they add some value if used. Features are good, even if they make money for the company who does them; they are especially good if the community wants them. They are only bad when they make money in such a fashion as to directly hurt the gameplay or the community. This is simply not the case here. Most of these features (such as paid character customization) came about largely at the behest of the community, are used widely by the community, and are generally enjoyed by them. In addition, none of them significantly affect gameplay. Remember: adding features is only a bad thing when it hurts the game or community in some way. Otherwise, it is a good thing. And if it's a feature that the community has asked for, it's a better thing.
Also, linking the use of paid features on WoW to Activision is highly questionable, considering the first of them actually was released a full year before the merger, in 2006.
However, one could, if one wished, link the recent "pet store" and "mount store" stuff to Activision, since it is more gameplay-related than the other features. However, they still do not affect gameplay, are totally cosmetic, and thus are VERY far away from the Kotick-style merchandising of games like Guitar Hero.
Thus, while this example may help you with the thesis that "Blizzard has been affected by the merger," it will not help you with your "Blizzard are greedy bastards" one.
(2): Starcraft 2 as a Trilogy.
I'm going to be honest here. I am utterly sick and tired of people bringing this up as an example of Blizzard being greedy. It is so utterly wrong-headed and has been proven so so many times in so many ways I hardly know where to start. First of all, the other games are expansions, like BW, and will be priced like it. Secondly, the decision was made based on Blizzard's quality standards and in order not to delay the game too much. Thirdly, Blizzard had always, from the beginning of development, planned to have two expansions (probably originally to make up for what they knew would be an extra-long development cycle). Fourthly, Blizzard is jamming more content into each of these games then in the whole of SC1. I don't know how hard it is to get through people's skulls that Blizzard made the decision for the good of the game and the community. If someone seriously wants to argue that this is an example of Blizzard being greedy, I would be happy to drench him in sources that prove otherwise. Until then, this should suffice.
(3): No LAN.
This is the best example you have. I could say that Blizzard made this decision because they thought it was for the best for the community and the game, but if you've already decided that they're greedy bastards, there's no reason you'd believe them anyway. And in any event, you could still use it as an example of Blizzard being arrogant and not listening to what the community wants. So I will concede this one example to you. Congrats.
(4): Map Marketplace.
The Map Marketplace is a great idea, frankly, and really, really good for the community. It provides one place where you can go to get custom maps, a big showroom for all the talented map-makers out there, and the fact that some (read: very, very few. Blizzard has said that only people who basically create their own game using the engine would get money) of the most talented map-makers out there will get money for doing the equivalent of making their own game using Blizzard's tools is great, and will provide the impetus for many great projects.
The fact that Blizzard is taking a percentage of the money involved is far from excessive, Kotick-style greed; all store sites take some amount of money from sellers in exchange for the notoriety and out-there-ness they're getting. And the fact that the map-makers will be using Blizzard's tools and Blizzard's engines only increases the fairness of the arrangement. And since we don't know how much Blizzard is going to take anyway (and I doubt it's even been decided yet) it's pretty much a moot point.
And the idea that Blizzard thought up this idea as a huge money-maker is somewhat absurd. Setting up and maintaining the system will cost a lot of time and money, and with the rules for "premium maps" that they've given us, I doubt they'll be making a lot of profit off of it. It's not anything near to selling cheap plastic guitars and drum sets.
So, again: adding a feature is not bad. Adding a feature with the intent of making money from that feature is also not bad, so long as it does not deleteriously affect the game or the community. In fact, it is good. The Map Marketplace is a great community tool, thought of with the good of the community in mind, that will also make Blizzard some amount of money. It does not support your thesis.
(6): Blizzcon tickets being raised, and paid DirectTV feed.
I'm not sure if this belongs in here. Putting on Blizzcon is profitable for the company, since it is basically a great deal of advertising that also makes them money. However, it still costs them, and especially the development team, a great deal of time and money to put on, and so to justify it, they basically have to make a fairly large profit off of it. In addition, it provides a great service to the community, is by all accounts a great show, and it's clear everyone at Blizzard is very committed to making it a great experience that is worth the time and money people spend in buying tickets and getting there.
To be honest, raising the ticket price by $25 is pretty minor. Maybe if it were in a list full of slam-dunks, it could work as an additional, minor example to confirm a trend. But as it is, the basic thing stands: Blizzard wants to make a profit off of Blizzcon. This is not a bad thing, since, again, it is a good feature that provides an excellent service to the community. Every year, they have rented bigger and bigger convention halls, trying to get as many people as they can in to answer the demand from the community. The fact that they raised the ticket prices could be for any number of reasons; but primarily, they were hosting more people that year in a larger hall with more extravagent gifts and presentations, including even Ozzy Ozbourne, who couldn't be cheap. So there is at least more content for the raised price. The DirectTV, is, again, a feature, in that it allows some of the millions of people who tried and failed to get a Blizzcon ticket to sort-of attend, anyway. It costs significantly less than the ticket, but allows people to get the content live. It is a feature that does not harm the community, adds a feature, and makes Blizzard money at the same time. It is a Good.
(6): Facebook integration.
I don't know how clear I need to be on this. It is a feature, which is convenient for some people, and hurts no one else. It probably took a developer five minutes to write the requisite code. It costs nothing.
If this is greed, then I'd sure like to see charity. Adding in stuff about Facebook privacy concerns, with the stupid, conspiracy-theory suggestion that Blizzard is only doing it so they can steal people's personal information does not help your case.
In conclusion, then, your evidence simply does not support your thesis. It does not support the "greedy bastard" conclusion, and does not show a significant link of this to Activision. You have selectively stuck various bits of "evidence" (most of which does not support your thesis) together in such a way as to form a narrative that supports what you had already concluded before you began looking for evidence. It is not convincing.
You also leave out a great deal of evidence that does not support your thesis: namely, the vast majority of Blizzard's actions over the past few years, the entire development cycle of SC2, etc.
For all these reasons, I am not convinced by your thesis in the least.
You have, however, convinced me that Bobby Kotick is evil. Congrats.
P.S: Note that even if you are otherwise unhappy about Blizzard's actions in regards to things like Chat Channels, that does not have much to do with the thesis. Blizzard's reasons for not putting in chat channels have nothing to do with Bobby Kotick; they do not increase profits in the least, they are not a monetization, etc. It's pretty clear that chat channels are a design decision, as said in dozens of interviews. It may be a design decision you don't agree with, it may be a design decision that shows that Blizzard doesn't understand or care about the community like they should...but the causal link between that and Activision is not really there. Unless someone wants to show me otherwise.
What saddens me quite a bit is just the timing of all this.
EA is a good example... fairly recently one of their bigwigs was somewhat famously quoted as saying that they want to be "less bad" towards consumers. He went on to talk fairly in depth as to how there are absolutely situations where a company has to choose between making more money and pleasing their fans. He said that EA had strayed too far to the side of money and that they wanted to be more balanced going forward... coming pretty close to admitting they had made pretty serious mistakes.
As someone else said previously in this post, I don't believe this approach previously by EA, and now by Activision, is sustainable and in fact it wouldn't surprise me at all if they know that too, but it will work in the short term, more than likely. It saddens me that SC2 is one of the franchises that is going to be hurt badly by what is essentially a short-term profit grab.
On May 30 2010 09:19 KungKras wrote: It's official. If Blizzard has become corrupted by the insanity of the gaming industry, Nintendo will be the only games company left that actually does things right.
I really hope their disruption of the industry is successful. Because games companies as they work now needs to be destroyed.
What about Valve?
I haven't really followed Valve's business, so I can't have a fully educated opinion about them. But they did give us Portal for free, and that's awesome. I just haven't kept. Still, even if I say that Nintendo and Valve are the only sane games companies left, even with twice the number of sane games companies, there still aren't a lot of them out there.
- Bethesda is still producing quality games in the fallout and elder scrolls universe, along with brink later this year which looks promising. - Gearbox is just about the only company I've seen give DLC thats more than worth it's price tag in borderlands. - Ubisoft is still being smart, creating independant games and creating sequels that are sensible, and not 20 spinoffs driving the game into the ground. - ATLUS is still producing amazing rpg's as was seen with demon's souls - mondo media is working on little big planet 2 which so far is looking revolutionary, and could change the way map editing on consoles works - rockstar is starting to reform from making its more tasteless games that emphasized on murder, extortion, and drug smuggling along with a dash of smut. Red dead redemption is a brighter change, although still somewhat retaining undesirable aspects from gta.
I wouldn't particularily consider nintendo sane with the way the wii is. The console should have compatibility with actual controllers that each game can be played with so that user preference can choose to use the remote or a controller. (super smach bros: brawl was smart enough to do this)
I forgot about Bethesda, they are awesome. Ubisoft is right there with the nutters though, just look that their insane DRM scemes for their PC games. I forgot about atlus too. Isn't the LPB devs called Media Molecule, any ways, they have been abought by SCE, and SCE are actively pursuing the used games market and pushing for DD only. Guess I forgot about Rockstar too. They are a really good dev. But I do have a feeling that there was something bad about them that I've forgot, or it's just me being paranoid. I'm dissapointed with most gaming companies nowadays, especially Capcom. A super edition of a fighter was soo 1993, and the way that they put DLC on their game discs. Not cool. I never thought I'd be dissapointed in Blizzard though.
About the hardware comment. There is no standard for what an actual controller really is. Aside from that, Brawl isn't the only game with diverse control options.
On May 30 2010 06:42 Mothxal wrote: Threads like this are so dangerous. You list a number of ominous sounding facts playing up to the playerbase's need for a target for their anger. Of course, now I imagine it'll be a trend on this forum to name-drop Activision and consider that an argument in itself. I don´t get that it is intrinsically evil to try to sell your customer-base products and try to get a business model that makes you the most money. The actual problem is that battle.net 2.0 is bad. I agree with that, but why not passionately argue for the list of features most people agree on that they want, instead of peddling your conspiracy theories designed to invoke hatred and mistrust of Blizzard.
Blizzard's increasingly profit driven culture, bnet 2.0 being as bad as it is and the Activision Blizzard merger all go hand in hand.
On May 30 2010 06:46 Level10Peon wrote: Guys, Blizzard still owned by Vivendi. Activision has almost zero control over Blizzard. This whole "Activision Blizzard" name was brought about because it sounded good. This whole write-up, while thorough, spins the events and takes things out of context. Think of how many things Blizzard did do because of fan feedback.
The battlecruiser shot, graphics revamp, nerfing of the mothership, etc. You guys are blowing things way out of proportion. Yes, Battlenet 2.0 may be less than ideal, but the core game is still fantastic, and they still are very engaged with the community for a modern game developer.
You all also do realize that everything Blizzard did was for a reason, not because their evil money gabbers. You may disagree with their reasons, but they are not just trying to be some evil corporate entity, and Activision is not trying to make them one. For example, the game was split into three parts because the campaign was so big and intricate. The expansions will be no more than $40, and we'll be gifted with double the new units we would normally get.
TLDR: The write-up is fundamentally flawed. It takes things out of context and ignores many facts without directly linking all the events it described to BNet 2.0's currents state. Activision has zero control over Blizzard, and neither entity is trying to make SCII some cheap money grab.
Personally I think that the splitup of the campaign in a compromis. This way they please activision for their "anual money make" and at the same time they can follow the core blizzard strategy "make good content with high quality even though it might take a long time".
You know, this article makes me feel as fucking disgusted and terrible and when it was revealed that Savior was at the center of all the match-rigging.
I trusted Blizzard to make great games, and there was even this great video on youtube talking about how Blizzard worked for years until Starcraft:Brood War was perfected:
The information in this post has thoroughly convinced me that Starcraft 2 was designed with more or less only profit in mind, that Blizzard is pursuing Esports purely for the sake of profit (which is honestly no better than KeSPA), and that Starcraft 2 is just another way for Kotick to fuck everyone that worked for years out of passion for the game and have build Starcraft: Brood War up to become the Esport that it is today.
This isn't blind anger and this is not a result of me needing a target for it.
This is cold, hard FACT.
And the FACTS have just revealed to me that the people that have Blizzard by the balls don't give a SHIT about the community and are in the industry to maximize their profits.
On May 30 2010 10:50 Captain Peabody wrote: I don't know how hard it is to get through people's skulls that Blizzard made the decision for the good of the game and the community.
Buahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
Care to give me the # of your dealer dude ? I need to try that shit ASAP !
First, I'd like to commend you for taking the time to write your thoughts up in a clear and readable manner, do a reasonable amount of research, and not just flame Blizzard.
However, that being said, your post is not at all convincing.
While you make no explicit argument in your post, it's pretty obvious what thesis you are trying to support. If I had to put it into words, it would be that "Blizzard has been negatively affected by the merger with Activision. They are now greedy like Activision." However, this thesis is totally and completely unsupported by the evidence you provide.
First of all, if you want to show that Blizzard is greedier now than they were, you have to provide some point of contrast; in other words, to show that there is a significant difference between the way Blizzard acted before the merger, and the way they act now, you have to provide a picture of what they were like before the merger that contrasts with the way they are now. Now, certainly you can reasonably assume (at least in this case) that most people know Blizzard's reputation, and are able to provide these contrasts themselves...but this does weaken what you're trying to say. And I think you'd find, if you actually looked at what Blizzard was like before the merger, you'd find more commonalities than you think.
Besides that, though, the timeline you provide simply does not support your argument. 3/4ths of the things on the timeline are solely related to Activision and Bobby Kotick, which is great if you're trying to prove that Bobby Kotick is a jerk, but not so good if you're trying to prove that Blizzard are now greedy, uncaring bastards.
Him talking about wanting to mess with Blizzard is better, but still proves nothing, since most of the things he talks about simply haven't happened; which actually works directly against your thesis. There is no in-game advertising; there is pretty much no monetizing of Bnet whatsoever, and the services that Blizzard talks about in another quote are hardly unreasonable.
Oh, and there's the interview with the Activision guy where he talks about how Blizzard is going to operate pretty much as they have before now, and that they're going to be fairly independent. You seem to think the "fairly independent" is some kind of contradiction with the rest of the statement, but if you knew how Blizzard has operated in the past, you wouldn't be. For most of Blizzard's existence, they've been owned by some other corporation; these corporations have varied in the amount they left Blizzard alone and the amount they meddled with her, but they've always been interested in the bottom line, and they've always had some degree of oversight over her. In general, though, Blizzard has been "fairly independent" for quite a long time.
Most of the information you provide, then, is superfluous.
Let's talk, then, about the three or four actual relevant pieces of information you bring up about Blizzard's actions after the merger, information you arrange in such a fashion as to suggest that Blizzard is acting in a greedy or uncaring fashion, with the implication that this is due to Bobby Kotick and Activision: (1)WoW paid stuff. (2): Starcraft 2 being a Trilogy. (3): No LAN (4): Map Marketplace (5): Blizzcon ticket prices being raised (?) (6): Facebook integration.
Let's go through these one by one, shall we?
(1): WoW.
Okay...I'm going to be very clear with this. Adding paid stuff to WoW makes Blizzard money. Blizzard is a corporation, whose main purpose is to make money. These paid things are features, meaning they add some value if used. Features are good, even if they make money for the company who does them; they are especially good if the community wants them. They are only bad when they make money in such a fashion as to directly hurt the gameplay or the community. This is simply not the case here. Most of these features (such as paid character customization) came about largely at the behest of the community, are used widely by the community, and are generally enjoyed by them. In addition, none of them significantly affect gameplay. Remember: adding features is only a bad thing when it hurts the game or community in some way. Otherwise, it is a good thing. And if it's a feature that the community has asked for, it's a better thing.
Also, linking the use of paid features on WoW to Activision is highly questionable, considering the first of them actually was released a full year before the merger, in 2006.
However, one could, if one wished, link the recent "pet store" and "mount store" stuff to Activision, since it is more gameplay-related than the other features. However, they still do not affect gameplay, are totally cosmetic, and thus are VERY far away from the Kotick-style merchandising of games like Guitar Hero.
Thus, while this example may help you with the thesis that "Blizzard has been affected by the merger," it will not help you with your "Blizzard are greedy bastards" one.
(2): Starcraft 2 as a Trilogy.
I'm going to be honest here. I am utterly sick and tired of people bringing this up as an example of Blizzard being greedy. It is so utterly wrong-headed and has been proven so so many times in so many ways I hardly know where to start. First of all, the other games are expansions, like BW, and will be priced like it. Secondly, the decision was made based on Blizzard's quality standards and in order not to delay the game too much. Thirdly, Blizzard had always, from the beginning of development, planned to have two expansions (probably originally to make up for what they knew would be an extra-long development cycle). Fourthly, Blizzard is jamming more content into each of these games then in the whole of SC1. I don't know how hard it is to get through people's skulls that Blizzard made the decision for the good of the game and the community. If someone seriously wants to argue that this is an example of Blizzard being greedy, I would be happy to drench him in sources that prove otherwise. Until then, this should suffice.
(3): No LAN.
This is the best example you have. I could say that Blizzard made this decision because they thought it was for the best for the community and the game, but if you've already decided that they're greedy bastards, there's no reason you'd believe them anyway. And in any event, you could still use it as an example of Blizzard being arrogant and not listening to what the community wants. So I will concede this one example to you. Congrats.
(4): Map Marketplace.
The Map Marketplace is a great idea, frankly, and really, really good for the community. It provides one place where you can go to get custom maps, a big showroom for all the talented map-makers out there, and the fact that some (read: very, very few. Blizzard has said that only people who basically create their own game using the engine would get money) of the most talented map-makers out there will get money for doing the equivalent of making their own game using Blizzard's tools is great, and will provide the impetus for many great projects.
The fact that Blizzard is taking a percentage of the money involved is far from excessive, Kotick-style greed; all store sites take some amount of money from sellers in exchange for the notoriety and out-there-ness they're getting. And the fact that the map-makers will be using Blizzard's tools and Blizzard's engines only increases the fairness of the arrangement. And since we don't know how much Blizzard is going to take anyway (and I doubt it's even been decided yet) it's pretty much a moot point.
And the idea that Blizzard thought up this idea as a huge money-maker is somewhat absurd. Setting up and maintaining the system will cost a lot of time and money, and with the rules for "premium maps" that they've given us, I doubt they'll be making a lot of profit off of it. It's not anything near to selling cheap plastic guitars and drum sets.
So, again: adding a feature is not bad. Adding a feature with the intent of making money from that feature is also not bad, so long as it does not deleteriously affect the game or the community. In fact, it is good. The Map Marketplace is a great community tool, thought of with the good of the community in mind, that will also make Blizzard some amount of money. It does not support your thesis.
(6): Blizzcon tickets being raised, and paid DirectTV feed.
I'm not sure if this belongs in here. Putting on Blizzcon is profitable for the company, since it is basically a great deal of advertising that also makes them money. However, it still costs them, and especially the development team, a great deal of time and money to put on, and so to justify it, they basically have to make a fairly large profit off of it. In addition, it provides a great service to the community, is by all accounts a great show, and it's clear everyone at Blizzard is very committed to making it a great experience that is worth the time and money people spend in buying tickets and getting there.
To be honest, raising the ticket price by $25 is pretty minor. Maybe if it were in a list full of slam-dunks, it could work as an additional, minor example to confirm a trend. But as it is, the basic thing stands: Blizzard wants to make a profit off of Blizzcon. This is not a bad thing, since, again, it is a good feature that provides an excellent service to the community. Every year, they have rented bigger and bigger convention halls, trying to get as many people as they can in to answer the demand from the community. The fact that they raised the ticket prices could be for any number of reasons; but primarily, they were hosting more people that year in a larger hall with more extravagent gifts and presentations, including even Ozzy Ozbourne, who couldn't be cheap. So there is at least more content for the raised price. The DirectTV, is, again, a feature, in that it allows some of the millions of people who tried and failed to get a Blizzcon ticket to sort-of attend, anyway. It costs significantly less than the ticket, but allows people to get the content live. It is a feature that does not harm the community, adds a feature, and makes Blizzard money at the same time. It is a Good.
(6): Facebook integration.
I don't know how clear I need to be on this. It is a feature, which is convenient for some people, and hurts no one else. It probably took a developer five minutes to write the requisite code. It costs nothing.
If this is greed, then I'd sure like to see charity. Adding in stuff about Facebook privacy concerns, with the stupid, conspiracy-theory suggestion that Blizzard is only doing it so they can steal people's personal information does not help your case.
In conclusion, then, your evidence simply does not support your thesis. It does not support the "greedy bastard" conclusion, and does not show a significant link of this to Activision. You have selectively stuck various bits of "evidence" (most of which does not support your thesis) together in such a way as to form a narrative that supports what you had already concluded before you began looking for evidence. It is not convincing.
You also leave out a great deal of evidence that does not support your thesis: namely, the vast majority of Blizzard's actions over the past few years, the entire development cycle of SC2, etc.
For all these reasons, I am not convinced by your thesis in the least.
You have, however, convinced me that Bobby Kotick is evil. Congrats.
P.S: Note that even if you are otherwise unhappy about Blizzard's actions in regards to things like Chat Channels, that does not have much to do with the thesis. Blizzard's reasons for not putting in chat channels have nothing to do with Bobby Kotick; they do not increase profits in the least, they are not a monetization, etc. It's pretty clear that chat channels are a design decision, as said in dozens of interviews. It may be a design decision you don't agree with, it may be a design decision that shows that Blizzard doesn't understand or care about the community like they should...but the causal link between that and Activision is not really there. Unless someone wants to show me otherwise.
Good post. Exactly what is was thinking halfway through the OP. No arguments for the opposite makes me really spectical. OP is so biased, and this is sad because if there were arguments both ways, the conclusion might still be the same, but now I can't trust the OP.
While you make no explicit argument in your post, it's pretty obvious what thesis you are trying to support. If I had to put it into words, it would be that "Blizzard has been negatively affected by the merger with Activision. They are now greedy like Activision." However, this thesis is totally and completely unsupported by the evidence you provide.
I'd like to answer the overall point of your post as demonstrated by the quoted paragraph.
I don't actually disagree with any of your individual points, particularly the SC as trilogy argument, I agree completely with your point of view on that.
That said, I think there is quite simply a difference in starting point. I would argue that any company that has a corporate overlord is going to be affected by the way that overlord wishes to do business. Kotick's opinions on gaming in general I think are a perfectly valid argument even if they are not directly related to Blizzard or SC2.
Now I think it probably is fair to assume that Blizzard has more independence than other subsidiary companies would based on their brilliant track record, but to assume that they are completely independent is fairly silly.
As for what Blizzard was like before, I think that you are correct in pointing out that there wasn't an adequate picture painted, but I would submit the counterpoint that, even given the time and research to do so, it would be hard to paint that picture in either a positive or negative light.
The reason being that the two biggest issues with Blizzard with respect to SC2 are things that were not issues in the past. Firstly, LAN... it would be pretty easy to say "Well Blizz gave us LAN before, but not now, therefore they suck." But I think you and I both know that the climate is different now, technology is different now, and even if we both think they are being wrongheaded about it, piracy is an issue now and it wasn't in 1998.
Issue two is control. I think a big issue people have with Blizzard now is not directly financial at all (though indirectly it absolutely is), and that is quite simply that they insist on control and ownership of everything created via SC2s engine. Again, comparing this attitude to the one they had in the past is not a relevant comparison because there really wasn't another way to do it 10 years ago. I don't know the timetable, but I would say that any attitude Blizzard had on the subject before DOTA is irrelevant to this discussion. Did DOTA come about before or after Activision? I don't know for sure but I think it was after...
On May 30 2010 10:50 Captain Peabody wrote: (6): Blizzcon tickets being raised, and paid DirectTV feed.
I'm not sure if this belongs in here. Putting on Blizzcon is profitable for the company, since it is basically a great deal of advertising that also makes them money. However, it still costs them, and especially the development team, a great deal of time and money to put on, and so to justify it, they basically have to make a fairly large profit off of it.
Blizzard loses money on Blizzcon every year, that's why prices were raised. They'll probably lose money from it this year too. It's probably a drop in the bucket compared to their overall expenses and more importantly their overall revenue, but a loss is a loss.
Captain Peabody basically said it all. A lot of this is just Activision bashing and very little of it works against Blizzard in any way.
I think the most important point is that Blizzard keep acting like paid services in WoW are somehow greedy. Apparently people don't realize that the community REQUESTED a paid server transfer feature in WoW. I'm not even kidding either. Back when I played WoW, I saw threads full of people saying flat out that they would be willing to pay money for a server transfer feature. It wasn't even Blizzard coming to the fans, it was the other way around. Pretty much all of the paid features in WoW existed due to community demand, so I really don't see why it's greedy when a company gives customers something it explicitly asks for.
Second of all is that a lot of people assume that Blizzard raised BlizzCon prices out of pure greed, yet a lot of you don't realize that not only is BlizzCon expensive, but Blizzard actually LOSES money after each BlizzCon.
Employees have to pay for BlizzCon tickets like anyone else, but even with that (and other ticket sales) BlizzCon still results in a substantial monetary loss for the company.
Conventions aren't cheap people. E3 was even under threats of disappearing forever purely because it was racking up so much expense for the companies involved. While I understand people want companies to be more generous, they still have to make money you know. I understand all the Activision hate, but even with Bnet's problems, I just find threads like this downright dishonest when they attempt to paint Blizzard as a bloodthirsty villain, especially when it's admitted that the research isn't even trying to be unbiased, or the fact that it shows lack of knowledge over what the merger was even like in the first place.
On May 30 2010 11:27 bendez wrote: From a shareholder perspective, they're doing a damn fine job.
Too bad we are not fucking shareholders and we actually want to PLAY THE GAME and build a COMMUNITY around it. If PROFIT is first and foremost in the minds of the people that are overseeing Blizzard, then trust me when I say that they will do everything and anything to suck every last penny from their audience. Kotick decides the direction of Battle.net 2.0 and Starcraft 2. Kotick is the one who will have the last say. And Kotick is a selfish, greedy individual that is not beyond charging players for everything.
And most importantly, Kotick DOES NOT CARE ABOUT NOR DOES HE RESPECT THE PLAYERS AND THE PLAYERS' WISHES. THIS CAN ONLY ADVERSELY AFFECT STARCRAFT 2 AND ITS FUTURE AS A GAME AND AN ESPORT.
Is there any chance that all of this was completely taken out of context and that Kotick actually loves puppies and has all of our ( the players' and buyers' ) best interest in mind?
Didn't think so Great read, thanks for giving us such an important update!
On May 30 2010 11:33 Spawkuring wrote:I think the most important point is that Blizzard keep acting like paid services in WoW are somehow greedy. Apparently people don't realize that the community REQUESTED a paid server transfer feature in WoW. I'm not even kidding either. Back when I played WoW, I saw threads full of people saying flat out that they would be willing to pay money for a server transfer feature. It wasn't even Blizzard coming to the fans, it was the other way around. Pretty much all of the paid features in WoW existed due to community demand, so I really don't see why it's greedy when a company gives customers something it explicitly asks for.
Because people wanted a feature that is pretty simple and could be done by automatically migrating a few database-entries/entities from one system to another or cause a few’d even pay money for it, doesn't mean that the community "requested" it and wanted... no rather they begged to pay for it ... I'm not sure what the numbers of profit is that Blizzard rakes in monthly with WoW, but having paid for the game, add-ons and paying a monthly subscription, one could expect that something like this would be a case of fair deal... and even if they make it a paid feature, something like 15-25$ for an employee to start a script is ridiculous...
Another aspect to consider, is that in this case (the "virtual world" of World of WarCraft) Blizzard Entertainment is the only one that can provide such a service on everything it entails and it is a slippery slope from a market economy perspective, while in the real world there is a freely competing market.
[b]Second of all is that a lot of people assume that Blizzard raised BlizzCon prices out of pure greed, yet a lot of you don't realize that not only is BlizzCon expensive, but Blizzard actually LOSES money after each BlizzCon.
Employees have to pay for BlizzCon tickets like anyone else, but even with that (and other ticket sales) BlizzCon still results in a substantial monetary loss for the company.
Conventions aren't cheap people. E3 was even under threats of disappearing forever purely because it was racking up so much expense for the companies involved. While I understand people want companies to be more generous, they still have to make money you know. I understand all the Activision hate, but even with Bnet's problems, I just find threads like this downright dishonest when they attempt to paint Blizzard as a bloodthirsty villain, especially when it's admitted that the research isn't even trying to be unbiased, or the fact that it shows lack of knowledge over what the merger was even like in the first place.
The convention is a promotional event, for Blizzard to show, advertise and build hype towards their products. The gains of such events are invaluable and immeasurable. Claiming they are operating at a loss is like claiming companies are stupid cause they pay advertising space in public transportation, seemingly they're losing money and there is no "direct benefit" one can perceive. That they’re expecting their own employees to pay for tickets would only serve to prove even more that they’re greedy xD
What “lack of knowledge” did I exactly show regarding the merger though?
On May 30 2010 11:33 Spawkuring wrote: Second of all is that a lot of people assume that Blizzard raised BlizzCon prices out of pure greed, yet a lot of you don't realize that not only is BlizzCon expensive, but Blizzard actually LOSES money after each BlizzCon.
Employees have to pay for BlizzCon tickets like anyone else, but even with that (and other ticket sales) BlizzCon still results in a substantial monetary loss for the company.
I'm not sure if you're trolling with that comment but I'm going to respond anyways. The convention is obviously not going to be able to directly support itself through ticket sales. The advertising and hype that it gives which improves future/current sales is where the monetary gain comes in. I don't see that quote on the page you linked, but I have to say that it is a pretty fucking stupid quote.
Because people wanted a feature that is pretty simple and could be done by automatically migrating a few database-entries/entities from one system to another or cause a few’d even pay money for it, doesn't mean that the community "requested" it and wanted... no rather they begged to pay for it ... I'm not sure what the numbers of profit is that Blizzard rakes in monthly with WoW, but having paid for the game, add-ons and paying a monthly subscription, one could expect that something like this would be a case of fair deal... and even if they make it a paid feature, something like 15-25$ for an employee to start a script is ridiculous...
Another aspect to consider, is that in this case (the "virtual world" of World of WarCraft) Blizzard Entertainment is the only one that can provide such a service on everything it entails and it is a slippery slope from a market economy perspective, while in the real world there is a freely competing market.
The convention is a promotional event, for Blizzard to show, advertise and build hype towards their products. The gains of such events are invaluable and immeasurable. Claiming they are operating at a loss is like claiming companies are stupid cause they pay advertising space in public transportation, cause they're losing money and there is no "direct benefit" one can perceive. That they’re expecting their own employees to pay for tickets would only serve to prove even more that they’re greedy xD
What “lack of knowledge” did I exactly show regarding the merger though?
Both of your counter-arguments basically amount to "they charged money for it, how ridiculous."
Like it or not, a lot of what goes into pricing is determined by how much customers are willing to pay. If a company sells an OPTIONAL service, and that service turns out to be a massive success, then there is nothing wrong with charging money for it (and keep in mind Blizzard has offered plenty of free transfers in WoW). Prices in many ways are set to what a customer wants to pay, not just to make up for the expenses of making the product.
On May 30 2010 06:04 Vynakros wrote: Amagad, just read through it... And at first I thought the merger was going to be positive for us end users...
EDIT: Because I was such a hardcore Blizz games fan, this day feels like a familiar friend died. And now he returns as a zombie...
On May 30 2010 06:10 inforsomechop wrote: And here I thought that Blizzard was a potential future employment possibility! Thanks for the summary. I think I will stick to my 20-man developer team back home
Really sad. Boy, Kotick sure seems like an unpleasant character.
Fantastic job doing the research to put this article together. It's too bad seeing the company you thought could see past profits and realize the benefits of creating a loyal community by making great quality games disgrace itself like this.
This is completely disheartening. I honestly have never felt any reason to not buy SC2, but this article makes me want to pirate the entire thing and play private servers because I don't want to give activision any more money.
That's the joy of capitalism - you fuck your fans and they're going to fuck you right back. =D
Alright everyone, Blizz has become just like EA... time to find the next gaming company that actually listens... my vote goes to Riot Games.
On a more serious note (although seriously, Riot Games = the coolest bunch of people in a company ever...), Blizz has always been about $$$ really, all companies are, and you have to kid your self if you don't think that they are that way.
Sure Blizz seems a bit worse now considering the differences in SC and SC2, but look at the growth of the video game market since then... look at the difference between movies 10 years ago and now, between cable 10 years ago and now... Why do you think video gaming would be any different?
Companies offer less for more and expect people to enjoy it, happens with everything. The only way we will be able to change it is by speaking out, but there aren't enough people willing to do so to make a real change.
Society today is too complacent and well... this is why there are like 11 million subscibers to WoW even though 99.9999% of the community say its worse now then it was before.
Nice post. To me the biggest issue is that Blizzard is feels that they should totally control the game. For example, they seem to believe that they have the right to E-sports broadcasts using the game. Forget about KeSPA, that just seems insane to me. If I buy a Canon camera, Canon doesn't have the rights to the pictures I take. After I pay my 60 bucks for the game I should be able to do what I want with it.
This idea of control extends over the entire SC universe. With no LAN, they completely control when and where you can play multi-player. Instead of selling something like a quality tool, they are renting access to a sandbox. "Go play kiddies, but only on our terms. BTW, we know what's best for you". Maybe I'm an old grouch but much recent technology seems to be going this way (e.g. locked iPhone).
This desire for control seems to be profit motivated but even if it wasn't I would find it disgusting. The fact is, no matter what company you are and how smart your developers are, the community contains people who are smarter and more creative. Restricting what they can do really cripples your product in the long term. Look at what modders have done, e.g. DoTA, Counter-strike, etc.
This thread makes me sad. Blizzard being as successful as it has been, why did they even consider the Activision partnership? The only reason, it seems, is monetary. So even before Activision 'poisoned' our beloved Blizzard, they were already thinking of ways to expand and get more dough.
Honestly, knowing this information makes me just mad. I'm almost positive that i wont buy sc2 after hearing this. Also, notice that the year that Blizzard tried to cancel KeSPA in order to get more money was the same year they merged. If theres any bright side, its that even with all this I can still retain my respect for broodwar develepors because they worked for a different company.
On May 30 2010 11:27 bendez wrote: From a shareholder perspective, they're doing a damn fine job.
Dunno, as an avid watcher of the markets and as a gamer following gaming stocks, I really can't say "they're doing a damn fine job." Maybe on the fundamentals and revenue but the stock price hasn't supported it. As a "buy and hold" type play, ATVI wouldn't have made you squat in the past 1 year, of course with any stock, prices constantly change and you can enter at a "good price" and sell at a better one. But it has not performed well at all, compared to something like AAPL.
Keep in mind there is more to stock price then just "how much money" they made. Bad PR, or future expectations play a large role in what happens today. If any thing, the stock itself would show that people don't exactly think ATVI will be of much more value in the future then it is currently.
Here is a 1.5 year chart of ATVI.
Notice it's last closing price is $10.75. On June 11th, 2009 the stock hit a HIGH of $13.14 per share. So practically one year ago, if you bought a bunch of shares of ATVI at $13+ you would have lost a significant amount of money so far. A few days ago the stock hit a recent low of $10.02, flirting with that $10 dollar line and it held it off.
Overall the stocks 1.5 year chart, in my opinion, represents a stock not on the rise, but in what I would call a "holding pattern" trading in a specific range. This isn't the first time it's flirted with the $10 mark either.
As you can see from the chart, you can make money short term trading ATVI. It gets cheap, and eventually enough people get interested in it to bring it back up but ultimately gets dumped back down when people quickly lose interest. In other words, no one wants to be the person buying near that $13 mark.
However, if you're a long term investor, the stock is actually trading at $2.39 less then it was nearly one year ago, about an 18% drop. I'm not quite sure how that could be considered "a damn fine job."
Sure it is trading higher then it was early 2009 but keep in mind nearly every stock is currently doing better then it was back then. That was the worst "recession" we have experienced, well ever. You could have bought just about any stock in march 2009 and made money by now, the markets were that LOW. Let me put it this way, in march 2009 the Dow was trading at 6,469 and it's currently at 10,136.
It is actually no wonder why Kotick is feeling so much pressure to do "whatever it takes"
P.S. For what it's worth, I'm a firm believer that if blizzard was on the Nasdaq as it's own company, without activision's "attachment" the stock would likely be fairing quite a bit better but that's just me.
P.S. For what it's worth, I'm a firm believer that if blizzard was on the Nasdaq as it's own company, without activision's "attachment" the stock would likely be fairing quite a bit better but that's just me.
I feel like Blizzard doesn't have the infrastructural demands to be an independent company, and if it were to assume them, it would negate the advantages of therof for a player. I also think that having Blizzard answer to a shareholders board through ATVI instead of independently actually results in more gains for the player.
That being said I wish Activision would stop being...evil. lol.
Plus theirs the issue of IP rights, contracts, partnerships, which would probably be impossible for blizzard to extricate itself out of at this point.
But a business can be a force for good. If the people at the top wish to do good then they do good. I believe that the wonderful people at Blizzard who go to work everyday want to have fun, want to make Starcraft better and will find a way to make it what it can and should be.
Because people wanted a feature that is pretty simple and could be done by automatically migrating a few database-entries/entities from one system to another or cause a few’d even pay money for it, doesn't mean that the community "requested" it and wanted... no rather they begged to pay for it ... I'm not sure what the numbers of profit is that Blizzard rakes in monthly with WoW, but having paid for the game, add-ons and paying a monthly subscription, one could expect that something like this would be a case of fair deal... and even if they make it a paid feature, something like 15-25$ for an employee to start a script is ridiculous...
Another aspect to consider, is that in this case (the "virtual world" of World of WarCraft) Blizzard Entertainment is the only one that can provide such a service on everything it entails and it is a slippery slope from a market economy perspective, while in the real world there is a freely competing market.
The convention is a promotional event, for Blizzard to show, advertise and build hype towards their products. The gains of such events are invaluable and immeasurable. Claiming they are operating at a loss is like claiming companies are stupid cause they pay advertising space in public transportation, cause they're losing money and there is no "direct benefit" one can perceive. That they’re expecting their own employees to pay for tickets would only serve to prove even more that they’re greedy xD
What “lack of knowledge” did I exactly show regarding the merger though?
Both of your counter-arguments basically amount to "they charged money for it, how ridiculous."
Like it or not, a lot of what goes into pricing is determined by how much customers are willing to pay. If a company sells an OPTIONAL service, and that service turns out to be a massive success, then there is nothing wrong with charging money for it (and keep in mind Blizzard has offered plenty of free transfers in WoW). Prices in many ways are set to what a customer wants to pay, not just to make up for the expenses of making the product.
You don't know what people want. How about you give me better SC 2 and a million dollars also? I might want that. People don't line up to give their money away. Maybe there is some kind of transaction fetish some might have but I think that would be very rare. It is ridiculous to charge several times for something so simple. I know in US they spend massive amounts of money to make people think that money is heavenly and pure and the market knows best so some of these posts aren't a surprise. When companies have Unique products like games and they have the power to determine what is optional you can see a lot of pretty ridiculous possibilities if you just want to see it.
the facebook idea is incase the game sucks. they hope people go to bnet2.0 to use facebook and be "hyper teenager facebook scene" on bnet 2.0 if they do nothing else on it..
On May 30 2010 14:24 ThunderChunky wrote: This is most certainly not the same Blizzard that made Brood War.
Come on, now. Their corporate heads are not the same, that's for sure. But the soul of the old Blizzard is still there in the design of the game itself.
Try to keep an intelligent, nuanced view of this and make sure you're hating the right people.
On May 30 2010 14:24 ThunderChunky wrote: This is most certainly not the same Blizzard that made Brood War.
Come on, now. Their corporate heads are not the same, that's for sure. But the soul of the old Blizzard is still there in the design of the game itself.
Try to keep an intelligent, nuanced view of this and make sure you're hating the right people.
Look, this game is great. BW. SC II has flaws, yes.
But it's community, what made BW what it is, is about to be smashed in all likelihood. I, for one, do not see myself ever participating in SCII or B.net 2 related products because well, Blizzard isn't Blizzard. They're after our pockets, not our hearts. They think we're all too stupid and uninformed about the corrupt and money-grubbing practices they partake in. They think this will all go unnoticed while they sit atop an ever-growing mound of cash. What can I say? I'm done.
Throw away 10 years-worth of the community that made SCII as profitable as it's probably going to be? I see this is short-sighted...
Because people wanted a feature that is pretty simple and could be done by automatically migrating a few database-entries/entities from one system to another or cause a few’d even pay money for it, doesn't mean that the community "requested" it and wanted... no rather they begged to pay for it ... I'm not sure what the numbers of profit is that Blizzard rakes in monthly with WoW, but having paid for the game, add-ons and paying a monthly subscription, one could expect that something like this would be a case of fair deal... and even if they make it a paid feature, something like 15-25$ for an employee to start a script is ridiculous...
Another aspect to consider, is that in this case (the "virtual world" of World of WarCraft) Blizzard Entertainment is the only one that can provide such a service on everything it entails and it is a slippery slope from a market economy perspective, while in the real world there is a freely competing market.
The convention is a promotional event, for Blizzard to show, advertise and build hype towards their products. The gains of such events are invaluable and immeasurable. Claiming they are operating at a loss is like claiming companies are stupid cause they pay advertising space in public transportation, cause they're losing money and there is no "direct benefit" one can perceive. That they’re expecting their own employees to pay for tickets would only serve to prove even more that they’re greedy xD
What “lack of knowledge” did I exactly show regarding the merger though?
Both of your counter-arguments basically amount to "they charged money for it, how ridiculous."
Like it or not, a lot of what goes into pricing is determined by how much customers are willing to pay. If a company sells an OPTIONAL service, and that service turns out to be a massive success, then there is nothing wrong with charging money for it (and keep in mind Blizzard has offered plenty of free transfers in WoW). Prices in many ways are set to what a customer wants to pay, not just to make up for the expenses of making the product.
I don't think this is the real heart of the issue with all the anger towards Activision/Blizzard to be perfectly honest. At the very least it isn't for me.
My anger and my rage are pure and simple the stripping of features that have been industry standard for years due to a misguided notion that the way all those games that made tons of money in the past did things was bad. That, and the insistence that they have to have control over every single aspect of SC2. LAN is the biggest culprit, but is certainly not the only one. Lack of cross-region play, lack of chat, lack of community tools of all sorts all point to a company who doesn't care one bit about an already existing and vibrant community that barely even needs a reason to love them.
And what really kinda bugs me is that not buying sc2 will be hard, because the game itself is very very good. I almost think it would be better if it was bad because then they really would take a hit... but this way the only people who get screwed are the very same people who bought 3 or 4 or 5 copies of BW and kept SC1 alive for almost 12 years now.
Didnt we all know that Blizzards passion has turned from the games into the money? I think its been pretty obvious ever since they said they would launch sc2 in 3 games, with no lan etc etc. Possibly even since they started to charge for extra stuff in wow.
I feel like the video game executives are starting to forget that buying games are a choice. Sure I purchased WC3 after WC2 because I liked the franchise, but I am starting to get pushed a little too far on SCII. It looks as though all games are moving towards the monthly subscription because they can continue to make money after the initial purchase, but I refuse to buy a game that requires that same monthly fee to play or the purchasing of maps for competitive play. I am not sure if there are many like me, but I can find other things to do with my time that are not as taxing on my college depleted wallet.
Video games are an option and I am beginning to think Blizzard is going to quickly find people will only take so much.
Most of the 20 years, that I have provided for growth at Activision, we were content to make products that are attractive to the 16-35 year old guy who has gotten no date for Saturday night.
He is not a man, but a god. Clearly, he has driven innovation and growth in the video game industry, through is intelligence, leadership, and foresight. Only from his perch at the pinnacle of industry (and quite possibly humanity itself) has he been able to accomplish these things.
Why would anyone question all he has done for us? While we have been clicking rapidly, in our ignorant bliss, this man has voluntarily sacrificed his every waking moment (which he could have spent playing any game he desires) to instead reach out to those titans of our time, such as Steve Jobs, and apply those principles to build a vibrant industry around our wretched non-social existence.
Verily, this man is responsible for most of our fond childhood memories. He should be worshiped, not blasphemed.
On May 30 2010 14:24 ThunderChunky wrote: This is most certainly not the same Blizzard that made Brood War.
Come on, now. Their corporate heads are not the same, that's for sure. But the soul of the old Blizzard is still there in the design of the game itself.
Try to keep an intelligent, nuanced view of this and make sure you're hating the right people.
I don't hate any people in particular. My anger is directed at the cynical money grabbing approach that is being taken with SC2. This isn't the Blizzard that existed 10 years ago...we are dealing with Infested Blizzard now.
On May 30 2010 14:24 ThunderChunky wrote: This is most certainly not the same Blizzard that made Brood War.
Come on, now. Their corporate heads are not the same, that's for sure. But the soul of the old Blizzard is still there in the design of the game itself.
Try to keep an intelligent, nuanced view of this and make sure you're hating the right people.
I don't hate any people in particular. My anger is directed at the cynical money grabbing approach that is being taken with SC2. This isn't the Blizzard that existed 10 years ago...we are dealing with Infested Blizzard now.
Lol this should be coined.
I try to be optimistic, but I am constantly re-adjusting my expectations as a whole. I really wonder if I will be saying the same thing when Diablo 3 comes around.
This is just such a disgusting read. I absolutely HATE Robert A. Kotick and I'll never want to get near Activision as an employee. Same rules apply to Activision as with EA now, never buy any of their titles without proper investigating if I really need that game.
This write-up is amazing. I remember to hate Activision was building up over the years from gamers. They drove call of duty into the ground so quick with modern warfare 2. There is no doubt that the Blizzard we use to know is slowly dying. I'm going to feel dirty paying for SC2... 3 times.
On May 30 2010 15:15 Warpzit wrote: This is just such a disgusting read. I absolutely HATE Robert A. Kotick and I'll never want to get near Activision as an employee. Same rules apply to Activision as with EA now, never buy any of their titles without proper investigating if I really need that game.
Same here. It's making me skeptical of Starcraft II as an overall product. The gameplay is excellent but I'm not sure about the rest of the package and what may have been cut out to provide as potential microtransaction.
WoW has had me worried since the merger and the increase in microtransactional activity; if 'paid name changes' or the like are ever brought to Starcraft 2, I'm done with Blizzard until they shape up. That of course, is potential and hypothetical, I'm not sure how it will turn out as of now.
Wow glad I took the time to finally read this thread.
Sitting through 4 years of business school, I can tell you these people can certainly act like the devils they are made out to be.
Im with the camp that will never pay a monthly fee to play a game. I paid for the game, now act like its 2010 and give me a decent online experience. I feel like I got a better deal from the playstation's 2 ridiculously rag tag system than Im getting from battle.net 2.0.
I think SC2 is a fantastic game but I loathe the changes Blizzard made around it. I decided to cancel my order instead. No point paying for something I won't fully enjoy.
On May 30 2010 14:46 Robinsa wrote: Didnt we all know that Blizzards passion has turned from the games into the money? I think its been pretty obvious ever since they said they would launch sc2 in 3 games, with no lan etc etc. Possibly even since they started to charge for extra stuff in wow.
bill roper saw where it was going 1994-2003 he wouldnt have taken this bullshit
I remember reading about these things as they happened, having the whole picture laid in front of you though is just like "wow, that seriously happened?" Makes me feel better that I haven't bought/played an Activision product in longer than I can remember.
Really if you want to attack Activision stop bringing WoW into it, the payed features are pretty much standard to majority of the MMO's out there and not unique to WoW.
On May 30 2010 17:13 Hunter_Killers wrote: Really if you want to attack Activision stop bringing WoW into it, the payed features are pretty much standard to majority of the MMO's out there and not unique to WoW.
Most mmo's do one or the other, paid features or subscription. Now WoW does both! Great OP, getting all the research together and showing us what Blizzard has now become.
Just go to their site and go to support. Then instead of asking for help on support u have space to enter a very relevant concern there. i already did. Dont be scared. this is our game and not theirs to fuck up. Kotick is a devil. Did u know the bible sais, "it is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich, greedy man to enter the gates of heaven." Hey Kotick say hi to Hitler for me when u die u noob ass CEO money hungry devil.
This actually makes me really sad. Blizzard always had such loving treatment of the fans, the amount of free days during the start of WoW for example. Really nice post op, but really sad facts.
maybe everyone on tl.net should have to pay 1$, so that we can offer some black guy in some ghetto a bunch of money for killing this fucking faggot. maybe after that, other publishers will start thinking about the power of videogame consumers.
On May 30 2010 18:28 AmstAff wrote: maybe everyone on tl.net should have to pay 1$, so that we can offer some black guy in some ghetto a bunch of money for killing this fucking faggot. maybe after that, other publishers will start thinking about the power of videogame consumers.
On May 30 2010 18:28 AmstAff wrote: maybe everyone on tl.net should have to pay 1$, so that we can offer some black guy in some ghetto a bunch of money for killing this fucking faggot. maybe after that, other publishers will start thinking about the power of videogame consumers.
Don't be an idiot. You are gonna make the mods come down on the entire thread. The OP was a well researched, informative post, but most everything after that has been garbage like this in this thread.
Kotick dead would make more good than harm to tell the truth, It would be totally fucking awesome if he got cancer or something of the kind. We all know Blizzard is fucking up badly and shafting us with bad service, the question is what we can legally realistically DO against it? Complaining so far didn't really do much, we're still stuck, and nobody wants to actually not play sc2 I believe.
Kotick truly is a greedy devil bastard that never play any video games in his life and dosen't know the hurt he's causing (i'm quite sure he's aware of that but just don't give a shit because he wants $$$)
I played call of duty 1 and 2 and those times were awesome. Call of duty 2 even made it to the WSVG. Then everything went downhill. New call of duty's were released and they became worser and worser. The Belgian cod community, which was big, died. Almost everyone decided to leave the game. It was the end of a great community, thanks to ACTIVISION.
I moved to starcraft 1 as a preparation for starcraft 2. I heard that BLIZZARD delivers great esports games so I was sure that starcraft 2 would become THE esports game. Now ACTIVISION is here to destroy this game and I am not sure that they will not succeed...
What else is left? Counterstrike and quakelive are decent esports games but it ends there. Blizzard was the last hope. Games become easier and easier and the chances for a new esports game are low.
The big problem in my opinion is that people just BUY their stuff. Example: I heard that ACTIVISION is SELLING maps for call of duty modernwarfare 2. People actually buy it... When I played cod1 and cod2, those maps were for FREE. We got them in several patches.
If this trend continues, then we will be paying a monthly fee for every game we want to play in the future.
If never bought an acitivion game after cod4 and I will never buy one again. I will buy starcraft 2 tough. It's time that people stop buying those activision games, just like a lot of people do with the EA games. Stop paying for their stupid DLC's, stop buying their games. Oherwise you will be paying a nice monthly fee for every game in a few years.
I might be naive or plain out ignorant regarding the business world (as I work as an artist & creative and never really took part of the business world), but could this merger between Activision & Blizzard be seen upon as a miss step and mistake by Blizzard which they would opt out of down the line?
If you think of a company & the business world, 5-10 years Blizzard could buy themselves out of the merger or something similar, no? I don't know the legal terms of their contract and merging, but I'd like to believe that Blizzard will realize what's going on eventually and break free.
If not, someone (some other company) else might (hopefully will) take their spot..
On May 30 2010 17:57 BSandT wrote: Hey Kotick say hi to Hitler for me when u die u noob ass CEO money hungry devil.
On May 30 2010 18:28 AmstAff wrote: maybe everyone on tl.net should have to pay 1$, so that we can offer some black guy in some ghetto a bunch of money for killing this fucking faggot. maybe after that, other publishers will start thinking about the power of videogame consumers.
On May 30 2010 18:52 Auronz wrote: Kotick dead would make more good than harm to tell the truth, It would be totally fucking awesome if he got cancer or something of the kind.
Please guys, there's no need to bring out the 12-year old in yourselves. The OP draws a pretty dire picture, but wishing somebody cancer and other such things is pretty much as inappropriate and immature as it gets. Once you're old enough and have a friend or family member hit by it, you'll understand.
And on the topic of "power of videogame consumers"; we do have power, but the only way to enforce it is to not buy the product. Sure, you can keep telling yourself Blizzard won't notice your 50 bucks, but if everybody thinks that way, what good are we gonna do? If you disagree with corporate policy/Bnet 2.0/whatever, just don't buy the game, as hard as that may be. That's all you need to do, no need to hire a hitman.
Oh and I remember people saying that they will not buy mw2 (when they heard that there will be no dedicated servers). They made big XFIRE groups under the name "we will not buy mw2". A week after the release more then 50% of the group was playing............mw2. Then those kids whined on the forums about dedicated servers and about the fact that they don't listen to the community. Those people forgot that they bought the game and that they actually supported the next call of duty game. They supported the ignorance towards the community. People buy their games, that's their only goal.
I just read that this plan for facebook integration was already planned last year .. did any TL members knew about this back in 2009?? the facebook integration on b.net2 i mean..
This guy's attitude is abhorrent. He clearly has no interest in videogames, and may as well be the CEO of just about any other company - because his only drive is profit - and whilst it might be naive to expect otherwise, you would hope he would be a little more subtle about going around admitting it.
On May 30 2010 17:13 Hunter_Killers wrote: Really if you want to attack Activision stop bringing WoW into it, the payed features are pretty much standard to majority of the MMO's out there and not unique to WoW.
Most mmo's do one or the other, paid features or subscription. Now WoW does both! Great OP, getting all the research together and showing us what Blizzard has now become.
But at least in wow the payed features give absolutely no advantage to you over players who are only paying the subscription... And its not like i will respect some1 cause i see he bought the 25$ mount.. (i usually just laugh at them).
Yeah im a bit scared too for the future:S but i hope that they will fail badly, fire all Blizzard oldschool employees, and some1 with more brains hire them all into 1 team again.
Mabye this isn't the best of places to post this but I'm curious nonetheless;
Poll: Are you willing to pay for;
None of them (153)
92%
Popular custom maps (9)
5%
All of them (3)
2%
Additional blizzard maps (1)
1%
More then 2 of the above (1)
1%
Mini tournaments (0)
0%
Skins (0)
0%
Icons (0)
0%
Avatars (0)
0%
167 total votes
Your vote: Are you willing to pay for;
(Vote): Popular custom maps (Vote): Additional blizzard maps (Vote): Mini tournaments (Vote): Skins (Vote): Icons (Vote): Avatars (Vote): More then 2 of the above (Vote): All of them (Vote): None of them
Well ultimately as long as people are paying as much as they ask they will exploit them nothing strange about thet. I would not care about that much but it actually ruins overall game play and quality of products a LOT greed > quality at this point. So they are now just another greedy company that looks for profit ... what we need is to w8 for small company that like blizzard was 15 years ago that will make true competitive environment and high quality game without looking just for exploitation and money sucking to the bones. Then when they make success they will be bought and all will go in circles
I think the majority of people on TL wouldn't be drawn in to paying for additional content, but I bet a hell of a lot of other people will. Personally, I don't doubt that these tactics are going to make activision blizzard a lot of money.
People are slightly overreacting for sure. Kotick doesn't have as much influence on Blizzard as people give him credit for.
Some of the stuff he said makes it obvious he's that stereotypical, evil, money grabbing corporate douchebag, I mean, COME ON, he doesn't even try to hide the fact that he wants to exploit that 16-35 year old male "nerd" demographic. And he actually uses word 'exploit' in official discussions (that comic was pure). Oh, and also straight out said that he wants to take out all the fun of making video games.. And sell a 50$ product for 500$..
But I still like to believe Blizzard can do what's best for the community
On May 30 2010 19:19 lew wrote: Oh and I remember people saying that they will not buy mw2 (when they heard that there will be no dedicated servers). They made big XFIRE groups under the name "we will not buy mw2". A week after the release more then 50% of the group was playing............mw2. Then those kids whined on the forums about dedicated servers and about the fact that they don't listen to the community. Those people forgot that they bought the game and that they actually supported the next call of duty game. They supported the ignorance towards the community. People buy their games, that's their only goal.
All of this is not news.. People are sheep and not only that, but people who know and care about things like servers and mods are a minority.. Gaming is mainstream now and the goal is to sell the game to a casual player trough advertising and cool graphics.. They want to shut down Korean progaming and even people on this site that watch and follow it are somehow supporting them.. People are sheep.. If blizzard came to this site and said "fuck you all" it wouldnt even affect their sales.. Hardcore people are a very small minority of players in todays world and even then after it cools down they would get the game.. Its like ISP-s. Your target is too sell subscription to people who check e-mails and surf occasionaly not people who would torrent and stream/download all day long.
kotick is a man so blinded by greed that he has become morally and socially inept, he is beyond help, and the best thing for the future of gamers and developers worldwide would be for him to retire, quit, or die, in the VERY near future.... and i guarantee that nobody will be upset about this, in fact it will be the best news one could hear.
i dont think people understand what a corporation is capable of and much more importantly what a corporation is NOT capable of. you might want to educate yourselves a little beforehand...
and although while reading what happened after blizzard gave away their freedom in creating innovative games in becoming part of a major corporation that has to answer their share holders i felt disgust and anger, you could do the exact same thing for any major corporation around the world and it would make activision blizzard look like a sheep.
just one last thing upon what corporations are NOT capable of doing: (e.i. it is IMPOSSIBLE by the nature of a corporation regardless of what their business model is)
corporations are UNABLE to make decisions based on moral behavior
the only basis of decision making is in relation of maximizing profits. so ask yourself: will it increase profit for actiblizzard or will it not?
that is the only valid question there is as ive said before in the thread discussing the kespa/blizzard quarrel. and in that regard we now know that keeping the age limit in korea at 18+ and monopolizing broadcasting rights there will generate more profit than having a 12+ age limit with blizzard having less control over their IP. activision blizzard is not capable of adding value to the cultural aspects or honoring the work kespa has done for blizzard in regard of increasing popularity by providing the most awesome players of all time. the only way of doing so is by attaching profits to each question. if it is not possible or unreliable it is in fact irrelevant.
in fact the only reason why corporations are not kidnapping your children and raping them till they die is that there is no not enough profit to outway the costs induced by the moral upset of their costumers and the fines they would have to pay towards the involving countries.
well if sc2 is pay to play i wont play, i dont pay to play anything, for instance. the only game i have tried was wow, i hate paying for playing, i have 300 dollars i dont think about adding game time when i have like 30 other amazing 3d games + BW + ICCUP?? haha g'day.
On May 30 2010 20:31 torfteufel wrote: corporations are UNABLE to make decisions based on moral behavior
In DragonAge there was a DLC at release and a character ingame that said "If you want to play this mission buy it".. They could put the same thing is sc2 and nobody would care.. People would still buy it and it would bring them more money and the guy who thought of that would be promoted..
Yes, corporations are profit-orientated. Thing is: We, as costumers, value quality games over stupid franchise-exploitation. Therefor, we should vote with our wallets and make it in fact less profitable for them to make stupid greedy shit. Of course you can't condemn them to be evil. But you can say "that sucks, I don't want to be ripped off like that. I'm not buying their games anymore". And imho, that's perfectly reasonable.
On May 30 2010 18:28 AmstAff wrote: maybe everyone on tl.net should have to pay 1$, so that we can offer some black guy in some ghetto a bunch of money for killing this fucking faggot. maybe after that, other publishers will start thinking about the power of videogame consumers.
Don't be an idiot. You are gonna make the mods come down on the entire thread. The OP was a well researched, informative post, but most everything after that has been garbage like this in this thread.
yeah you are right but after reading this “We have a real culture of thrift. The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making videogames.” over and over again, i just pray for his dead. the world doesn't need such subhumans!!!
Well it is, after all, the corporate guys job to squeeze as much money as possible out of their product. Thats what they always have done and will do. So no reason to give them a hard time for actually doing what they are paid for. It is, however, a terrible terrible move to alienate the fanbase by closing of their product from the creativity of the gamers. SC1 or HL1 are great classics because they were really good games (as is SC2 imho), and the fans themselves filled the remaining gaps, or even reinvented parts of them, to make them absolutely brilliant. I think in the end its just a bad business decision trying to control the whole product nazi-style - this way it can never be more than it was the day it left the developers office. What a horrible waste of human ressources BLIZZ CEOs - the fans will happily improve the gaming experience of your product for free. so why not just let them?
Personally i will not buy starcraft 2 at all. I don't want even a dime of my money going not only to such people as activision's CEO, but to blizzard "big guys" like mike morhaime as well. They knew exactly what was happening and what their role was when the activision blizzard merging happened, and when they decided to abolish LAN. And if you think those two events are disconnected you are only naive.
I knew Kotick was evil ... not just this evil. I'm suprised how alike bobby kotick and hitler are... And I almost have no faith in SC2 becoming the dream game anymore ...so I'll just stick to BW and watching the MSL , OS...oh that's right I forgot , there's a chance that Activision blizzard will kill Esports
Is this really that suprising? Welcome to the game industry of 2010. We gamers have shown the coorperations that they can squeeze suprising amounts of money out of us (see WoW) and the future of gaming will be one filled with overpriced DLC's and all sorts of other cash-cow garbage. And the simple fact is that we will continue to buy it, because we are a bunch of addicts.
The first day advertisement started appearing on the World of Warcraft Forums, I knew that Blizzard's influence in the ActivisionBlizzard alliance is fading away.
I really never cared much for other games, and I have like 13 original game copies while the rest are pirated copies. And the funny thing is, 7 of those original games are Blizzard games (Starcraft, Warcraft II, Warcraft III, Warcraft TFT, WoW, WoW:TBC, WoW:WotLK), simply cause I want the full experience and not just the offline one cause the game is good and worth it, but I never participated in any of the "small transactions" offers simply because I feel it's exploiting the players' admiration (Or addiction if you want to use that word) to the game.
If they will release SC2 with the current maps and making usage of the custom maps require an additional fee, then I'll stick to those original maps... Maybe I'll play Incineration Zone then :D
Okay so basically here is what has happened. As soon as Kotick(devil ass noob) was eleceted CEO of Blizzard Activision, Starcraft 2 was made into a three part game all to maximize profits most likely.
Then they announce shit like, no chat rooms (WTF), no LAN (U joking right!!), and also no cross realm play (NOW UR FUCKING ME AROUND!!!!). Oh and its very possible that they will have microtransactions such as seen on Xbox live so that we have to pay for other shit too.
its kinda funny because in the interview with Frank Pearce, the interveiwer actually asked, 'so do we have to pay for 2 or more clients to play cross realm?' and his blatent answer was yes. So for sure we are stuck in realm unless we are rich. Im from australia and am going to be stuck with koreans who dont know a fucking word of english (besides for gl hf and gg)
Here is a propostion for you Kotick.....I WILL BUY ALL THE FUCKING CLIENTS FOR STARCRAFT 2 IF U CAN PERSONALLY TAKE ME AND SHOW ME WHICH TREE IN MY BACKYARD SUPPOSEDLY GROWS ALL THE FUCKING MONEY!!!!!!
Man i know for sure my mates and I dont have lots of money coz we have bills and shit to pay and then blizzard want to make it difficult to play my favourite game??!?! Then they want to separate it into three different parts and THEN they tell me to buy different clients if i wanna play with guys from the USA. kotick that is like kicking me in the nutz, stepping on them and then making me watch as you deep fry them in your kitchen.
This money hungry losers is gonna drive this much loved game into the ground.
On May 30 2010 17:13 Hunter_Killers wrote: Really if you want to attack Activision stop bringing WoW into it, the payed features are pretty much standard to majority of the MMO's out there and not unique to WoW.
Never did I pay for more than just a subscription for ultima online first and best MMO and during vanilla WOW and early TBC days did i pay for anything more than just a subscription. Blizzard I believe didn't want to cross moral line of selling digital goods and didn't want their players selling the digital goods but have now taken a u-turn on this decision
It's not really surprising, i never expected Starcaft 2 to match the success of it's predecessor or to be of similar quality. Blizzard decided to focus on the commercial aspects of games with WoW already, and it's no wonder they do the same with starcraft 2. Even if some quality developers or managers were left in blizzard after they lost the original devteam (this was right before the wow release), after the merge with Activision - which looks like a company coming directly out of corporocratic sci-fi universes and is really disturbing - they have not a chance to work like they did for previous blizzard titles.
I don't expect to be playing Starcraft 2 for too long, sure i'll buy a copy, play a few months, maybe even a year, and that's it. I remember when EA was regarded as the bad evil company killing good games, these guys make them look as heroes now :D
Like any conspiracy theory, just throwing up a smokescreen of facts and expecting dots to suddenly connect out of nowhere is a terrible way to do analysis. Some of the events on that list are completely benign quotes taken wildly out of context. Some of the events on that list are terrible things that have nothing to do with Blizzard. Some of the events on that list are actually good things that have occurred in the lifetime of Blizzard. Finally, some of them just don't matter in regards to Blizzard.
For example, part of the OP talks about the microtransactions added to WoW but that's not true in the least. Those aren't microtransactions. Those are vital services that the players of WoW really begged for for a long time. The fact that they cost something is fine. There's no reason it should be a free process to do things that may have a non-trivial amount of effort and support attached to them. The closest that WoW is getting to microtransactions is now the sale of mounts and non-combat pets. Personally I feel that this is an issue and a dark path they're travelling down. But I don't think it's a portend of darker clouds in the future.
One of the things that I think may be different about the development of WoW and SC2 is just the level to which the developers actually contact the members of the community. In WoW, Blizzard developers physically contact some of the top end guilds fairly frequently. There's a back and forth that way that helps them tune the new content. In SC2, I think it was Nony who lamented the fact that it appears Blizzard has not stepped out to contact some top players to address some of the balance issues in the game or contact casters to address some of the issues with the UI for casting.
This is a legitimate issue. So are some of the shortcomings of Bnet 2.0. But we should address those issues in an isolated sense, instead of searching for the grand "meaning to all things" through conspiracy theories.
The central missing premise of the entire OP is the proof that Blizzard is actually being influenced negatively by Activision. There needs to be a shred of proof that Blizzard has actually developed something in a way that they would not previously have developed something simply because of Activision involvement. You likely cannot do it, and simply drawing inferences where no inferences exist won't work. It's very Glenn Beck to mash unrelated information together to suggest a connection and then simply say "I'm not saying there's a connection here, but it's awfully fishy."
This is really eye opening to me. I know Activision Blizzard is a company, and companies need to make money to be realistic, but the track record of Activision Blizzard since the merge looks like a fucking ruthless and advantageous scheme (at the expense of loyal customers).
Some of this information actually made my heart sink. It just so happened that I was listening to the Music of Blizzard CD while I was reading, and suddenly (in a disgusted-awe while reading some of the articles) the once-loved Diablo songs lost the resonance that they used to have with me.
I really hate to doubt Blizzard (I'll always have faith in them, even if it's a little less embraced). But the direction that Activision Blizz Exec's seem to be taking are really turning me off. I hope Blizzard-Side's directions are at least a little more independent from what I've read so far. ( <--- apparently that's not crying, haha. :'(
In a more serious note: great post D3xter! The way EA and Activision are doing business today, churning out huge amounts of sequels and low-quality games, brought the entire video game industry to a crash once. I don't believe it will happen again, the roots are just too solid today, but if things keep going this way a drop in sales figures in the near-future is not farfetch'd.
On May 30 2010 06:13 Dental Floss wrote: Just like the banking corporations' greed caused the collapse of financial markets, and the greed of the oil corporations caused the worst oil spill in history...
When you focus only on profits and not on a long term strategy of making a quality product and a quality community you are doomed to failure.
On May 30 2010 20:55 a11 wrote: Yes, corporations are profit-orientated. Thing is: We, as costumers, value quality games over stupid franchise-exploitation. Therefor, we should vote with our wallets and make it in fact less profitable for them to make stupid greedy shit. Of course you can't condemn them to be evil. But you can say "that sucks, I don't want to be ripped off like that. I'm not buying their games anymore". And imho, that's perfectly reasonable.
Thats how modern economics work, in theory at least... (I hate modern economics ) The problem with all that is the lack of an alternative, so its almost safe to say, that blizzard has a monopoly on the RTS market, so al long as there are no alternatives to chose from, we can chose not to play modern RTS at all, or swallow all this crap that they are throwing at us. Thats also the reason why they are trying to get away with all of this, since they know there is no competition.
If you've been following Activision since 2005 you know all this more. That's why when I heard about the merger I was screaming like a little bitch and they told us everything would be fine, we have control of our own IPs. Wrong, I knew it, I called it, look at the decline of WoW since.
Bobby Kotick and Activision are the worse thing to happen to the gaming industry as a whole, and before them it was EA, and as EA makes it back up there after being shafted by consumers.
Guys plz continue to vote at the pole on page 18. It might not make a huge difference in the long run but at least make it the most voted pole on tl.net. Plz vote and encourage others to vote. I dont wanna see my fav game go down the drain because of some money hungry devil like Kotick.
Bobby Kotick would never be sacked because of an internet poll, unfortunately.
Now, he may be sacked eventually for focusing on short term games while oversaturating markets like Guitar Hero (dead) and Call of Duty (soon!) instead of the overall big picture, but as we saw with the financial crisis, the current quarter is the most important.
Anyways, anyone really worried about premium services in SC2 should only be worried that their unit skins and portraits don't look as cool as people who pay money for theirs.
As a hardcore wow raider, doesn't bother me in the slightest that the charge 10$ for a pet or 25$ for a mount, and it shouldn't bother you what other people would like to do with their money either.
I knew that activision and kotick are evil, but not that it was soooobad...
I'm really thinking about not supporting anything that has written "activision" on it anymore - that stuff is just sad and the only thing ppl can do about this, is stop buying their games...
Such an awesome article indeed. Didnt know most of this stuff, now I understand why it all went to a big downfall for the last couple of years. Thank you for the read.
but my vote goes against the current policy of blilzzard activision and i do have only one vote that counts:
buying the game or not
lets see how it turns out once its out for a couple of months. but if blizzard activision does not change some key stances thats it for me and blizzard. it was a nice time - but it has passed away
On May 30 2010 20:31 torfteufel wrote: corporations are UNABLE to make decisions based on moral behavior
In DragonAge there was a DLC at release and a character ingame that said "If you want to play this mission buy it".. They could put the same thing is sc2 and nobody would care.. People would still buy it and it would bring them more money and the guy who thought of that would be promoted..
That dlc was free to anyone who bought the retail version of the game.
lol.
also lol@people wishing death to Bob Kotick..man o man o man.
On May 30 2010 20:31 torfteufel wrote: corporations are UNABLE to make decisions based on moral behavior
In DragonAge there was a DLC at release and a character ingame that said "If you want to play this mission buy it".. They could put the same thing is sc2 and nobody would care.. People would still buy it and it would bring them more money and the guy who thought of that would be promoted..
That dlc was free to anyone who bought the retail version of the game.
lol.
also lol@people wishing death to Bob Kotick..man o man o man.
It was only free for the collector's / digital deluxe editions, the rest of us got a cool dialog option that was along the lines of "1. I will help you. [Purchase additional content]"
Spot on on that death topic, normally this kind of shit would get you banned for weeks, but it seems to be tolerated if the person in case is greedy and offensive.
On May 31 2010 00:11 BSandT wrote: Guys plz continue to vote at the pole on page 18. It might not make a huge difference in the long run but at least make it the most voted pole on tl.net. Plz vote and encourage others to vote. I dont wanna see my fav game go down the drain because of some money hungry devil like Kotick.
thank you, peace ;-)
I refuse to post in that poll, its stupid to try and ask for someone to be fired as a CEO for doing what they see as best for their company (profits). Its much more of a problem with Blizzards development morals as to whether or not they build a game with features which people want.
Whether Kotic is good for gaming is pretty much a big no but he isn't head of activision blizzard due to his love of gaming, hes a corporate CEO - not head of a game design studio. He looks after the interests of his shareholders, not whether a game progresses from the original, if someone says facebook integration will make profits - he'll add facebook integration. What we need to be doing is offering Blizzard reasons to add these much needed features not being as juvenile as to demand a CEO be fired....
lots of circumstantial evidence being thrown around here clearly this guy Kotick does not have gamers' best interests at heart, but how much proof is there that he has any kind of substantial influence over Blizzard? right now this little conspiracy theory is just a lot of shots in the dark and a collection of facts that may or may not have any connection.
Even thou some of the things your list are troublesome. People tend to forget blizzard is a company trying to make money. As long as they keep giving me quality products, I don't mind paying for them. Your whole post is all about how they are trying to make money, but don't every company try to do the same?
I hate money whores and i don't want my favorite game to be a product for the $profit of someone. But let's face it, the goal of any compagny is to make benifits and the more they do, the more they will try to do.
For those saying: 'im not buying sc2 anymore': Well, are you really gonna sacrifice all the fun and entertainement you could have with this game because of that guy? You dont wanna lend your money to them? Well thats also a greedy comment IMO I mean, not being willing to buy a game because the owners are looking for profit is kinda greedy in itself, isnt it ?
Just leave the money-minded people focused on their profits. I will be focusing on playing the game because that is what I like.
They can have all the money they want i just don't care. I will have more fun than them in life then. Com on guys don't let this ruin your game.
EDIT Hey this is a Starcraft progaming forum. Do not discourage people from buying the game in here, what the hell?
I must say I'm very proud of so many people cancelling their preorders and changing their stance in Starcraft 2 and future blizzard games. We need to show that the consumer has the power and this type of greedy exploitation makes corporations look bad. and looking bad is what they never want.
Disgusting indeed... we could do something if we organize you know... create a website and take measures there as a community. we're all just crying arround, but we could be heard if we act as thousands... and we sure are a few thousands
This makes me sad, but its like a David and Goliath situation. It would take millions of gamers to revolt to make a change. I just don't see that happening.
Blizzard needs to find new, better ways to monetize their games. If you guys think paying $50 for BW 10 years ago was a fair deal for Blizz, then you are wrong. Nowadays, SC2 has to compete with titles like Farmville for developer and publisher mindshare... why do you think a Facebook game should be more profitable than a huge development project like SC2? In my mind BNet should be subscription based, and purchase of the game should come with 6 months to a year free, so that I can continue to pay for the SC experience if I play this game for 10 more years. Then at least Blizz has a recurring revenue stream to point at and say: "Look, this is why we cater to the 'hardcore' players, because they are the ones still paying for the privilege 3 years down the line'
On May 31 2010 01:53 Fatmonkey wrote: This makes me sad, but its like a David and Goliath situation. It would take millions of gamers to revolt to make a change. I just don't see that happening.
You know, I don't know about that. Disconnected communities can't make it work (See MW2 or L4D2 boycott) but communities that are more organized have succeeded (See MMORPGs) time and time again.
I feel like starcraft is really where it is now because of the community, because of iccup and competitive tournaments and leagues. Even though Blizzard is a big name, I don't think SC2 appeals to a mass audience the way WoW does.
So basically, I would not be surprised if in fact the SC community is tight enough to say no.
And to the other guy about no alternatives: you can just keep playing BW. SC is going to have 2 expansions so even if you don't play retail right away, you can hop in after the playing field is "reset" with the last expansion.
Yeah well Im not really all that suprised at all this read, becouse every major company is about money only and they care only about making more and more of it. But this is so much reasearch and so many facts and quotes it just blows my mind.
On May 31 2010 01:34 UnderWorld_Dream wrote: Huge work into this, and very interesting.
I hate money whores and i don't want my favorite game to be a product for the $profit of someone. But let's face it, the goal of any compagny is to make benifits and the more they do, the more they will try to do.
For those saying: 'im not buying sc2 anymore': Well, are you really gonna sacrifice all the fun and entertainement you could have with this game because of that guy? You dont wanna lend your money to them? Well thats also a greedy comment IMO I mean, not being willing to buy a game because the owners are looking for profit is kinda greedy in itself, isnt it ?
Just leave the money-minded people focused on their profits. I will be focusing on playing the game because that is what I like.
They can have all the money they want i just don't care. I will have more fun than them in life then. Com on guys don't let this ruin your game.
EDIT Hey this is a Starcraft progaming forum. Do not discourage people from buying the game in here, what the hell?
This post just made me rage.
I'm greedy for not wanting to pay a significant amount of money (at least $150 for all 3 campaigns + more if I want cross realm play) for an unfinished game that developers have not even been showing signs of listening to what the people want?
Oh and this is a STARCRAFT programing forum (for now) not a STARCRAFT 2 progaming forum, as it kind of doesn't exist.
Just leave the money-minded people focused on their profits. I will be focusing on playing the game because that is what I like.
This is exactly the sheep mentality that will allow huge corporations to rape you monetarily and get away with it. When something is wrong, you're supposed to have the option to make it right.
Well, are you really gonna sacrifice all the fun and entertainement you could have with this game because of that guy?
The people who really know how to send messages to corporations will in fact boycott Bnet2, SC2, and any affiliated services. I am one of them. It doesn't matter how many securities Blizzard puts into effect, there's a hacker somewhere out there who will crack it and distribute it so the storyline/1P people can get their hands on it without paying these stupid fees. Feel free to take it up the ass but a mature adult doesn't get that "I have to have my new toy right now I don't care about the cost!" feeling.
Yeah man, no surprise here. Blizzard went to hell after merging with them, and the best example: world of warcraft. The company that did games like diablo 2 and starcraft:bw does not exist anymore. It's sad, but it's the truth. Just now if people could stop the fanboyism and open their friggin eyes. Too bad for the poor ones that got their brains sucked out with wow. Please all say a prayer for those lost souls... and set activision on fire. Then maybe we can save good ol' blizzard from them (the ones that remain, because btw, are but a handful of the original crew).
Absolutely phenomenal post, but also a post that ruined my day.... well not only this did but also Husky's video on Youtube about his views on this whole situation lol. All these money hungry suits trying to push out a shitty/under-developed product makes me so angry, and wanting to charge more for it is almost comical. From no LAN, no chat rooms, no private games, constant drops..ect the list goes on and on. This just isn't how Blizzard has ever ran things. And what's worse is when they release a statement about issues and reasoning behind certain choices, their answers either don't answer anything or make no sense. Blizzard imo has released some of the greatest games of all time right next to Square Enix, and I will always support them. I'm just really hoping the release date gets pushed back not only to solve and fix all of these persistent issues, but to keep Blizzard's image and integrity in tact. This is about your fan base, not just about the greenbacks.
On May 31 2010 01:34 UnderWorld_Dream wrote: Huge work into this, and very interesting.
I hate money whores and i don't want my favorite game to be a product for the $profit of someone. But let's face it, the goal of any compagny is to make benifits and the more they do, the more they will try to do.
For those saying: 'im not buying sc2 anymore': Well, are you really gonna sacrifice all the fun and entertainement you could have with this game because of that guy? You dont wanna lend your money to them? Well thats also a greedy comment IMO I mean, not being willing to buy a game because the owners are looking for profit is kinda greedy in itself, isnt it ?
Just leave the money-minded people focused on their profits. I will be focusing on playing the game because that is what I like.
They can have all the money they want i just don't care. I will have more fun than them in life then. Com on guys don't let this ruin your game.
EDIT Hey this is a Starcraft progaming forum. Do not discourage people from buying the game in here, what the hell?
This post just made me rage.
I'm greedy for not wanting to pay a significant amount of money (at least $150 for all 3 campaigns + more if I want cross realm play) for an unfinished game that developers have not even been showing signs of listening to what the people want?
Oh and this is a STARCRAFT programing forum (for now) not a STARCRAFT 2 progaming forum, as it kind of doesn't exist.
Yay for Blizzard run e-sports I guess
I'm only saying that being so concerned by the cost of the game is somehow greedy. But it's my opinon you can disagree i'm totally fine with it.
It's a matter of how much you love something and how much you are willing to pay for it. Some people would not pay 5$ for sc2 while i would pay 200$ and woulndt care. (of course i would find it expensive but i'd just drink less beer??)
Sadly this world is ran by profits and whatever you could do, it won't change.
On May 31 2010 02:35 Diminotoor wrote: The people who really know how to send messages to corporations will in fact boycott Bnet2, SC2, and any affiliated services. I am one of them. It doesn't matter how many securities Blizzard puts into effect, there's a hacker somewhere out there who will crack it and distribute it so the storyline/1P people can get their hands on it without paying these stupid fees. Feel free to take it up the ass but a mature adult doesn't get that "I have to have my new toy right now I don't care about the cost!" feeling.
On May 31 2010 02:35 Diminotoor wrote: The people who really know how to send messages to corporations will in fact boycott Bnet2, SC2, and any affiliated services. I am one of them. It doesn't matter how many securities Blizzard puts into effect, there's a hacker somewhere out there who will crack it and distribute it so the storyline/1P people can get their hands on it without paying these stupid fees. Feel free to take it up the ass but a mature adult doesn't get that "I have to have my new toy right now I don't care about the cost!" feeling.
A mature adult doesn't steal.
so true! if you really want to boycott bnet2 and sc2 then do it without cracking the game. everything else is so phony
Damn this is terrible first they charge us for buying their games then they charge us for attending their events.. where will this end!! Youve all been playing their beta for sc2 for a couple of months now, they included 13 major patches aimed mainly at unit and race balance yet people are still convinced that blizzard dont care about this game or the community whatsoever. What company would put up a game for a few months just prior to release with such emphasis on fair, balanced and competitive play if they didnt give a shit about quality and just wanted to sell copies to the masses who will only dabble in online play?
I used to play WoW and people have been inventing conspiracy theories concerning Vivendi, Bill Roper leaving, "the original development team" on its forums long before the Activision merger, so threads like these don't phase me. Anger is probably the best way to mobilize people: look at all the activity concerning b.net 2.0 on tl lately, so that Blizzard pretty much has to take notice. Anger being misdirected is quite dangerous however, and I wouldn't want to see a lot of people being hateful and angry for all the wrong reasons, fostering a bad atmosphere, inducing Blizzard to change things just to make it appear like they're doing something. ("anti-mob changes"!)
"for an unfinished game that developers have not even been showing signs of listening to what the people want? "
Dude it's on patch 13 already... They're making tons of changes, maybe not EVERYTHING you want, but to say they're not listening at all is just crazy.
I hate Bobby Kotick and Activision with a PASSION, but you have to be a bit realistic about this... Blizzard deserved to make way more money on SC and BW. If you think of how many hours most of us played those games compared to how little we spent on them, it's absolutely insane. If you don't like what they're doing with the game, then DON'T PLAY IT. It's that simple.
The only people I hate more than Bobby Kotick are those that use excuses like this to STEAL a game. Come on, "they're charging to much for it, so I'm gonna pirate it to... um... boycott it, yeah". No, that's just you being cheap. $150 spread over a couple years is NOT a lot of money for a game you're gonna be playing a few hundred hours a year. Ok, I still hate Bobby more than you, but you're getting close
What a fantastic read. Thank you for taking the time to put this (and actually put source links!).
To be perfectly honest, I have also gone with that mentality of "oh well, I guess I'll just pay for it since I just really want to play the game". But I was a bit to ignorant with the ENTIRE situation of how this whole Activision/Blizzard merger really changed the company's mindset (I also don't play WoW so I wasn't informed about those microtransactions, etc.). So thank you for helping this fool out.
It's unfortunately turning out to be one of those situations where the dev's want to put out their best product and give something truly special to us gamers while management just looks at the bottom line and how to increase that profit for their own use. I can't particularly blame them too much since that's essentially what lot of businesses do (e.g. how does this positively impact the company) but it's certainly going way to far. Thank goodness Blizzard has other games such as WoW to sort of pad the profit enough so that Blizzard can actually take their time to make SC2 (SC2 has been delayed and worked on for quite some time). Unfortunately, since BNet affects all the Blizzard products from here on out we are seeing less of that SC:BW/W3/D2 influence but replaced by management (as this post points out, Activision managers) who believes that this BNet (and other profit making models) is the way to go.
Again, thanks for the great read and let's hope that at least some of our ideas (and let's be honest, mostly complaints) are not just heard, but are used.
This is bullshit. Rally up , with the pitforks and torches , lets burn Activision to the ground. If they really pull all the shit they can come up through(paying extra for nothing etc etc) I'll definatly not buy another BlizzActivision game..ever.. Even Diablo 3 will suffer my wrath.
This post really opened my eyes to the evolution of gaming. Squaresoft was my ABSOLUTE favorite gaming company before Enix came and screwed it up. I was even playing Warcraft II and heavily addicted into Diablo at the time. I was literally a Blizzard and Squaresoft fanboy. I can't believe how terrible the Final Fantasy games have been coming along. To this day, nothing will ever beat the classics.
Same with Blizzard....the addiction I had to play War2 story all day long, even jump on the multiplayer playing Archer Warz in a DEAD game. It's a damn shame...a damn shame.
On May 31 2010 02:35 Diminotoor wrote: The people who really know how to send messages to corporations will in fact boycott Bnet2, SC2, and any affiliated services. I am one of them. It doesn't matter how many securities Blizzard puts into effect, there's a hacker somewhere out there who will crack it and distribute it so the storyline/1P people can get their hands on it without paying these stupid fees. Feel free to take it up the ass but a mature adult doesn't get that "I have to have my new toy right now I don't care about the cost!" feeling.
If you play wow you'd know this already. Blizzard stated they would never charge for all that stuff that is mentioned being sold in WoW, then they merge with some corporate giant and tada everything costs money.
Anyone got a clue why they actually merged with Activision in the first place? I mean they had money coming out of their ass from WoW alone so i don't really see the benefits they get. They get someone who tells them what to do and in turn gets them even more money?-.-
And Kotick is pretty much what gamers should classify as Satan, i hope he resigns and dissappears soon but he's bringing the investors huge mountains of cash so i don't see that as a possibility in the near future, one can only hope...
On May 31 2010 04:07 unkkz wrote: If you play wow you'd know this already. Blizzard stated they would never charge for all that stuff that is mentioned being sold in WoW, then they merge with some corporate giant and tada everything costs money.
Paid Server Transfers and Paid name changes were in the game prior to the Activision-Blizzard Merger.
And the World of Warcraft Card Game, which since the beginning has included vanity pets, and mounts, which are only available by buying packs of trading cards, was released in 2005.
Don't get me wrong, I dislike Bobby Kotick for a variety of reasons, mostly pertaining to how he controls the game companies under his branch at Activision Blizzard, but to think he somehow started this premium feature business is ludicrous.
On May 31 2010 02:35 Diminotoor wrote: The people who really know how to send messages to corporations will in fact boycott Bnet2, SC2, and any affiliated services. I am one of them. It doesn't matter how many securities Blizzard puts into effect, there's a hacker somewhere out there who will crack it and distribute it so the storyline/1P people can get their hands on it without paying these stupid fees. Feel free to take it up the ass but a mature adult doesn't get that "I have to have my new toy right now I don't care about the cost!" feeling.
A mature adult doesn't steal.
so true! if you really want to boycott bnet2 and sc2 then do it without cracking the game. everything else is so phony
Word. The entire point of a boycott is that you don't like the service thats being offered. By pirating, its "Oh its fine, i just don't want to pay for it"...
Thanks for the in depth post D3xter, good to see there's a clear root of evil. Kotick = alpha penis.
Edit: Before reading all this, I thought that Kespa's story on Blizzard's demands in their negotiation were exaggerated, but now it feels very realistic to me, especially since it's basically Kotick doing the big deal making.
On May 31 2010 03:45 Legendary- wrote: This post really opened my eyes to the evolution of gaming. Squaresoft was my ABSOLUTE favorite gaming company before Enix came and screwed it up. I was even playing Warcraft II and heavily addicted into Diablo at the time. I was literally a Blizzard and Squaresoft fanboy. I can't believe how terrible the Final Fantasy games have been coming along. To this day, nothing will ever beat the classics.
Same with Blizzard....the addiction I had to play War2 story all day long, even jump on the multiplayer playing Archer Warz in a DEAD game. It's a damn shame...a damn shame.
pff yeah. it's like you have battles of good vs bad everywhere nowadays.
On May 31 2010 02:44 cloudJR wrote: Absolutely phenomenal post, but also a post that ruined my day.... well not only this did but also Husky's video on Youtube about his views on this whole situation lol. All these money hungry suits trying to push out a shitty/under-developed product makes me so angry, and wanting to charge more for it is almost comical. From no LAN, no chat rooms, no private games, constant drops..ect the list goes on and on. This just isn't how Blizzard has ever ran things. And what's worse is when they release a statement about issues and reasoning behind certain choices, their answers either don't answer anything or make no sense. Blizzard imo has released some of the greatest games of all time right next to Square Enix, and I will always support them. I'm just really hoping the release date gets pushed back not only to solve and fix all of these persistent issues, but to keep Blizzard's image and integrity in tact. This is about your fan base, not just about the greenbacks.
the b.net mistakes that happened recently with patch 13 make me think that someone sabotaged the program
On May 31 2010 00:11 BSandT wrote: Guys plz continue to vote at the pole on page 18. It might not make a huge difference in the long run but at least make it the most voted pole on tl.net. Plz vote and encourage others to vote. I dont wanna see my fav game go down the drain because of some money hungry devil like Kotick.
thank you, peace ;-)
I refuse to post in that poll, its stupid to try and ask for someone to be fired as a CEO for doing what they see as best for their company (profits). Its much more of a problem with Blizzards development morals as to whether or not they build a game with features which people want.
Whether Kotic is good for gaming is pretty much a big no but he isn't head of activision blizzard due to his love of gaming, hes a corporate CEO - not head of a game design studio. He looks after the interests of his shareholders, not whether a game progresses from the original, if someone says facebook integration will make profits - he'll add facebook integration. What we need to be doing is offering Blizzard reasons to add these much needed features not being as juvenile as to demand a CEO be fired....
helping a company out that already has lots of money isn't the way. "When the righteous become many, the people rejoice; but when anyone wicked bears rule, the people sigh."
"The righteous one is knowing the legal claim of the lowly ones. He that is wicked does not consider such knowledge."
To Quote Jesus: "The land of a certain rich man produced well. Consequently he began reasoning within himself, saying, 'What shall I do, now that I have nowhere to gather my crops?' So he said, 'I will do this: I will tear down my storehouses and build bigger ones, and there I will gather all my grain and all my good things; and I will say to my soul: "Soul, you have many good things laid up for many years; take your ease, eat, drink, enjoy yourself."' But God said to him, 'Unreasonable one, this night they are demanding your soul from you. Who, then, is to have the things you stored up?' So it goes with the man that lays up treasure for himself but is not rich toward God."
On May 31 2010 01:31 kyama wrote: Even thou some of the things your list are troublesome. People tend to forget blizzard is a company trying to make money. As long as they keep giving me quality products, I don't mind paying for them. Your whole post is all about how they are trying to make money, but don't every company try to do the same?
yeah well giving someone a job and then forcing them to fight for their lively hood really seems to reek of a lack of appreciation for a job well done.
On May 30 2010 22:00 Antisocialmunky wrote: What happens if one person bought the map, made the exact same map(maybe in a different tileset) and put it on there for free?
that's exactly why blizzard put in the map protection feature. so that people can do this if that person didn't protect his map.
This seems like an appropriate place to ask.. Did Blizzard management/employees ever have a public reaction to all the shit that happened with Infinity Ward?
On May 31 2010 05:07 BladeRunner wrote: This seems like an appropriate place to ask.. Did Blizzard management/employees ever have a public reaction to all the shit that happened with Infinity Ward?
Of course they won't have an official stance on it, it is not their business. No need to get burned either by the market or by higher management (the holding company's management).
They have a top notch management and development team and we have a very high degree of confidence that they know how to run the business and a track record to prove it. In addition, they have an extraordinarily strong product pipeline, with Starcraft, Wrath of the Litch King and Diablo 3.
Jesus fuck. Frankly, with the controversy over BNet in context with this history, I don't see a future BNet that I will want to be a part of. I've always been a huge fan of the Diablo series, but I deliberately stayed away from WoW because of the way they monetized players. I got into SC very recently and I was very much considering buying SCII because it didn't seem to be going the direction of WoW. I see that I was wrong about that. I no longer plan on buying this game.
My god... Speechless... I would like to THANK the former of this thread for the great work, i wish someone would do it earlier. Thats just means how blind we are and stuck in our virtual world. Kotick is doing an excelent job as CEO, i can just congratulate him on whats done. He brought a huge profit to the company he is running, meanless through what stepps. But im also happy that now i know what is really going on and will react accordinly.
On May 31 2010 05:29 Teddyman wrote: Activision doesn't have anything to do with SC2. Activision Blizzard does, as they own Blizzard. Blizzard publishes their own games.
You don't think that the merger with Activision has had any bearing on the development choices for SC2 and BNet2.0 whatsoever?
On May 31 2010 05:29 Teddyman wrote: Activision doesn't have anything to do with SC2. Activision Blizzard does, as they own Blizzard. Blizzard publishes their own games.
You don't think that the merger with Activision has has any bearing on the development choices for SC2 and BNet2.0 whatsoever?
Yes, of course there was influence. That doesn't mean Activision, an entirely separate studio is providing input onto b-net 2.0. Perhaps the shareholders of Activision Blizzard are, but Activision as a studio is not.
On May 31 2010 05:29 Teddyman wrote: Activision doesn't have anything to do with SC2. Activision Blizzard does, as they own Blizzard. Blizzard publishes their own games.
You don't think that the merger with Activision has has any bearing on the development choices for SC2 and BNet2.0 whatsoever?
If I post only 3 sentences, you might as well read them all.
On May 31 2010 05:29 Teddyman wrote: Activision doesn't have anything to do with SC2. Activision Blizzard does, as they own Blizzard. Blizzard publishes their own games.
You don't think that the merger with Activision has has any bearing on the development choices for SC2 and BNet2.0 whatsoever?
Yes, of course there was influence. That doesn't mean Activision, an entirely separate studio is providing input onto b-net 2.0. Perhaps the shareholders of Activision Blizzard are, but Activision as a studio is not.
I was under the impression that Activision is first and foremost a publisher and not a studio. Am I incorrect?
On May 31 2010 05:29 Teddyman wrote: Activision doesn't have anything to do with SC2. Activision Blizzard does, as they own Blizzard. Blizzard publishes their own games.
You don't think that the merger with Activision has has any bearing on the development choices for SC2 and BNet2.0 whatsoever?
Yes, of course there was influence. That doesn't mean Activision, an entirely separate studio is providing input onto b-net 2.0. Perhaps the shareholders of Activision Blizzard are, but Activision as a studio is not.
I was under the impression that Activision is first and foremost a publisher and not a studio. Am I incorrect?
I think they're a mix of both. They have a bunch of studios owned by them and they also publish.
Last two weeks i was thinking about buying Modern Warfare 2 after my exams. It is 60 EUR but I liked Modern Warfare, and with Starcraft 2 Beta ending, I would have nothing to play for a few weeks. Afer reading this I pretty much changed my mind, Im not going to support such a group of greedy bastards. I can not even think about the money like a way to say "Thank you" to developers, because it is pretty much possible they will never see that money...
Starcraft 2 will be the last game, that I will buy, that has something in common with Activision. Like if I had to buy a game to be able to play it... God created things like Torrents and Rapidshare for situations like this...
On May 30 2010 10:50 Captain Peabody wrote: First, I'd like to commend you for taking the time to write your thoughts up in a clear and readable manner, do a reasonable amount of research, and not just flame Blizzard.
Thanks
While you make no explicit argument in your post, it's pretty obvious what thesis you are trying to support. If I had to put it into words, it would be that "Blizzard has been negatively affected by the merger with Activision. They are now greedy like Activision." However, this thesis is totally and completely unsupported by the evidence you provide.
The first part seems about right, especially based on the pictures used that should be clearly implied, and yes it is biased based on my personal experiences and values. What I was trying to "prove" wasn't that they're completely "greedy" like Activision, but that they have well been influenced by it, even if their actual games are still good for the foreseeable future, they have that tainted feeling about it.
First of all, if you want to show that Blizzard is greedier now than they were, you have to provide some point of contrast; in other words, to show that there is a significant difference between the way Blizzard acted before the merger, and the way they act now, you have to provide a picture of what they were like before the merger that contrasts with the way they are now. Now, certainly you can reasonably assume (at least in this case) that most people know Blizzard's reputation, and are able to provide these contrasts themselves...but this does weaken what you're trying to say. And I think you'd find, if you actually looked at what Blizzard was like before the merger, you'd find more commonalities than you think.
I assumed people already know having played some of their previous titles... Personally (although starting with WarCraft I) I bought (some even multiple times), played and really enjoyed a lot of their older more obscure games like "The Lost Vikings I+II" and "Blackthorne"... If anyone hasn't played those and wants to see some of the old Blizzard quality in action... get them, they're awesome and was almost a total fanboy by the point Diablo II and WarCraft 3 came out, unfortunately the company policy took a slow turn for the worse with the release of World of Warcraft, its success and said merger...
The turning point came with Starcraft. You can’t say Warcraft and Warcraft 2 since Blizzard was considered an equal among various companies around that time. There are many companies that have a ‘hit game’. The pattern is that the company then descends into mediocrity either due to Industry men overmilking it to developers thinking they are artistic geniuses and ruining it. Success can be more fatal than failure in bringing down a company. ... Yes, folks, the above images are Starcraft. Someone who might not have seen these images, especially a young person, is probably already spewing, “Lies, Malstrom! That is not Starcraft! That is just Warcraft in space!” And you are exactly right. That is just Warcraft in space. And this is where part of the Turning Point for Blizzard came. The reaction from the public was ‘meh’ to Starcraft. If Blizzard was run by Industry men, they would have said, “We must meet our quarter deadline! Ship it!” If Blizzard was run rampant by out of control artists, they would have said, “These people just do not understand our genius. Ship it!” But Blizzard did not ship it. They went back and began doing a complete overhaul. Those Alpha images are pretty interesting outside of how bad they are. The art, even back then, was pretty interesting and very colorful. The units are interesting to look at even if the Zerg look like ladybugs on steroids. ... Now Mr. Reader, do you recognize your Starcraft now? “Yeah. But… not everything looks right. There are different units and different art. The engine is the same but there are many differences still.” Oh reader, you don’t know how right you are! When presented to the public again, people got excited about Starcraft. At this point, Industry men would say, “Ship it!” At this point, some artists would be so satisfied that they got a good response so they would ‘ship it’. But clearly from seeing the above images, the game was not shipped in that state. ... Far from just a marketing move, Blizzard is taking the Starcraft test very seriously and literally working day and night to apply finishing touches to the product. Blizzard staffers can be found on Battle.net during most hours of the day (you’ll even spot employees dialing in from home during the wee hours), fielding questions, accepting bug reports, and even challenging other players. You’d think the makers of the game would be plenty good at it, and you’d be absolutely right – GameSpot experienced Blizzard’s Starcraft prowess firsthand in a fierce Protoss versus Terran battle (let’s just say the Terrans have seen better days).
This was the time when Blizzard cared and more importantly listened to people, when they put their heart into it and it wasn't about "balance sheets", "business models" or "platforms". It was just a company of gamers, making games for other gamers and putting their all into it. I believe that most of them still do (maybe sans the enthusiasm from back in the day and more "professional"), but they're ultimately controlled by people that don't.
Besides that, though, the timeline you provide simply does not support your argument. 3/4ths of the things on the timeline are solely related to Activision and Bobby Kotick, which is great if you're trying to prove that Bobby Kotick is a jerk, but not so good if you're trying to prove that Blizzard are now greedy, uncaring bastards.
Him talking about wanting to mess with Blizzard is better, but still proves nothing, since most of the things he talks about simply haven't happened; which actually works directly against your thesis. There is no in-game advertising; there is pretty much no monetizing of Bnet whatsoever, and the services that Blizzard talks about in another quote are hardly unreasonable.
Oh but I think it does, because it makes the breach clear compared to how Blizzard operated before (and never overcharged or thought about monetizing every damn feature) and exposes that their business practices as seen today (building up from World of Warcraft and the point of the merger) have a lot more in common with the business practices of said Kotick (no matter how it came to be, if Kotick is directly involved and dictates everything, if he taught the Blizzard marketing thing how to "do business the right way" with those balance sheets or if he plays golf and eats lunch with Morhaime and has talks about the future of his company, directly influencing it) , who ultimately is one of the few in charge of big marketing decisions than their own back when they became "famous" and "world renowned".
If I could *prove* that he or Activision is behind it, I would instead just do that instead, and not bother researching the web insinuating things. Unfortunately there's no open documentation detailing all this or what goes on inside said companies open to the public to do it.
Let's talk, then, about the three or four actual relevant pieces of information you bring up about Blizzard's actions after the merger, information you arrange in such a fashion as to suggest that Blizzard is acting in a greedy or uncaring fashion, with the implication that this is due to Bobby Kotick and Activision: (1)WoW paid stuff. (2): Starcraft 2 being a Trilogy. (3): No LAN (4): Map Marketplace (5): Blizzcon ticket prices being raised (?) (6): Facebook integration.
Let's go through these one by one, shall we?
(1): WoW.
Okay...I'm going to be very clear with this. Adding paid stuff to WoW makes Blizzard money. Blizzard is a corporation, whose main purpose is to make money. These paid things are features, meaning they add some value if used. Features are good, even if they make money for the company who does them; they are especially good if the community wants them. They are only bad when they make money in such a fashion as to directly hurt the gameplay or the community. This is simply not the case here. Most of these features (such as paid character customization) came about largely at the behest of the community, are used widely by the community, and are generally enjoyed by them. In addition, none of them significantly affect gameplay. Remember: adding features is only a bad thing when it hurts the game or community in some way. Otherwise, it is a good thing. And if it's a feature that the community has asked for, it's a better thing.
Also, linking the use of paid features on WoW to Activision is highly questionable, considering the first of them actually was released a full year before the merger, in 2006.
However, one could, if one wished, link the recent "pet store" and "mount store" stuff to Activision, since it is more gameplay-related than the other features. However, they still do not affect gameplay, are totally cosmetic, and thus are VERY far away from the Kotick-style merchandising of games like Guitar Hero.
I guess this is one place where we fundamentally disagree...
While I do agree (and know) that companies are there to make money, they have a lot of different ways to do it, Blizzard made money before this didn't they? A lot of other companies are making money without slave labor or burning children for coal. It is this difference that distinguishes a good company from a profitable company at the expense of the consumer (which is also more narrow-minded, because it provides short-term profit, but leaves a company vulnerable in the long term)...
And there are a lot of examples where inherently "good" companies can be profitable as hell too, like Google, with all their free services... from Google Books, Earth/Maps, the Android platform being Open Source, they have news.google.com, finance.google.com, they bought YouTube at a loss and still operate it free (albeit with commercials here and there), they released the VP8 Codec as an Open Standard to be used by everyone for HTML5, the Google Language Tools can translate whole texts understandably from the most obscure languages into your own, they offer great working environments while even paying attention to operating "green": http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7292600.stm and more... They have and are basically changing the world, and all that mostly for free, while making most of their money with just Ads.
Sure there are some privacy concerns here too, but they aren't f...ing/exploiting their faithful/devoted customers by milking 30$ for a simple feature or 25$ for maybe 2 hours in a modeling program, saying they "requested" it... It is their right to do so, but(imo) morally it is a disgrace that Blizzard even considered doing that to people that already paid for their game, all add-ons and keep shelling out 13-15$ a month making them gazillions, and don't see why this is or should be defended.
Even going with your definition, their new plan for the "Remote Auction House" would actually hurt people IG, cause people could buy items others wanted using their iPhone or a Web Browser from wherever they are.
(2): Starcraft 2 as a Trilogy.
I'm going to be honest here. I am utterly sick and tired of people bringing this up as an example of Blizzard being greedy. It is so utterly wrong-headed and has been proven so so many times in so many ways I hardly know where to start. First of all, the other games are expansions, like BW, and will be priced like it. Secondly, the decision was made based on Blizzard's quality standards and in order not to delay the game too much. Thirdly, Blizzard had always, from the beginning of development, planned to have two expansions (probably originally to make up for what they knew would be an extra-long development cycle). Fourthly, Blizzard is jamming more content into each of these games then in the whole of SC1. I don't know how hard it is to get through people's skulls that Blizzard made the decision for the good of the game and the community. If someone seriously wants to argue that this is an example of Blizzard being greedy, I would be happy to drench him in sources that prove otherwise. Until then, this should suffice.
Are these three separate games? How much will all of these games cost?
The StarCraft II Trilogy will consist of the base StarCraft II game and two expansion sets. Pricing on these games hasn't been determined at this early stage; however, we've always charged an appropriate price for the content the player receives, and we will continue to release high-quality games that offer great value.
You can't know for a fact how they will be "priced".
2) All people that want to play the game at a competitive level, getting all the units and buildings, enjoy the newest maps etc. will have to pay for all 3 parts, especially in conjunction with "no LAN", requirements of all the keys for each account, regional restriction and several other restrictions this doesn't exactly seem like a good thing from the consumer side of things:
How will the expansion sets impact multiplayer gameplay?
The expansion sets will add new content to each race for use in multiplayer matches. This could include additions such as new units, abilities, and structures, along with new maps and Battle.net updates. If I buy StarCraft II but don't buy any of the expansion sets, will I still be able to play online?
Yes. This will work similarly to Warcraft III and the original StarCraft, which maintained separate online gaming lobbies and ladders for expansion set players and players with the base Warcraft III or StarCraft.
3) Each of the new "Expansions having as much content as StarCraft 1" arguments are a non-issue, considering both Brood War and The Frozen Throne, while being considered Add-Ons and being sold at a price point of 30$ and below also had 26/27 missions respectively WHILE having 3 different campaigns and different units/levels etc. for each. I don’t see where they come off praising themselves on this or using it as an excuse to charge more, seeing as it remained the same.
On a personal note I see it like this: WarCraft (1994): 2 Playable Races/Campaigns (Orcs & Humans) WarCraft 2 (1995): 2 Playable Races/Campaigns (Orcs & Humans) StarCraft (1998): 3 Playable Races/Campaigns (Humans, Zerg & Protoss) WarCraft 3 (2002): 4 Playable Races/Campaigns (Orcs, Humans, Nightelves & Undead) StarCraft 2 – Wings of Liberty (2010): 1 Playable Race (Humans) with a small Protoss "Mini"-Campaign
Having 3+ different campaigns to play through, that all started anew at some point and offered a completely new perspective and way of playing on things while not overstaying their welcome in the Single Player part of those games was one of the charms and quality features of previous Blizzard games for me. It still remains to be proven that 28+ missions with the same race and largely same units/base-building doesn't get boring in SP after a while.
(4): Map Marketplace.
The Map Marketplace is a great idea, frankly, and really, really good for the community. It provides one place where you can go to get custom maps, a big showroom for all the talented map-makers out there, and the fact that some (read: very, very few. Blizzard has said that only people who basically create their own game using the engine would get money) of the most talented map-makers out there will get money for doing the equivalent of making their own game using Blizzard's tools is great, and will provide the impetus for many great projects.
The fact that Blizzard is taking a percentage of the money involved is far from excessive, Kotick-style greed; all store sites take some amount of money from sellers in exchange for the notoriety and out-there-ness they're getting. And the fact that the map-makers will be using Blizzard's tools and Blizzard's engines only increases the fairness of the arrangement. And since we don't know how much Blizzard is going to take anyway (and I doubt it's even been decided yet) it's pretty much a moot point.
And the idea that Blizzard thought up this idea as a huge money-maker is somewhat absurd. Setting up and maintaining the system will cost a lot of time and money, and with the rules for "premium maps" that they've given us, I doubt they'll be making a lot of profit off of it. It's not anything near to selling cheap plastic guitars and drum sets.
So, again: adding a feature is not bad. Adding a feature with the intent of making money from that feature is also not bad, so long as it does not deleteriously affect the game or the community. In fact, it is good. The Map Marketplace is a great community tool, thought of with the good of the community in mind, that will also make Blizzard some amount of money. It does not support your thesis.
In short: It is not only a thing of money but also a thing of gaining control and future control over certain things, I think the community would have been a lot better off if they didn't intervene at all into this one and just left it like it was in WarCraft 3 for the most part.
Also I've already said stuff to the following points somewhere in this thread already and most of your disagreements still originate from your belief that every "feature", no matter how minor, bad, greedy, annoying etc. it is or the circumstances it came to be (like leaving something out of a game on purpose in the first place, to sell it later on or leaving something else out that was there before, people got used to and everyone wants back), no matter if a previous product had them already included or not and they should be considered standard is a "good" thing.
If they feel the need to include something like FaceBook, they can at least put a feature in to ignore/make said feature disappear, because for some people having "FaceBook" written all over their game is like waving a red blanket in front of a bull.
In conclusion, then, your evidence simply does not support your thesis. It does not support the "greedy bastard" conclusion, and does not show a significant link of this to Activision. You have selectively stuck various bits of "evidence" (most of which does not support your thesis) together in such a way as to form a narrative that supports what you had already concluded before you began looking for evidence. It is not convincing.
You also leave out a great deal of evidence that does not support your thesis: namely, the vast majority of Blizzard's actions over the past few years, the entire development cycle of SC2, etc.
For all these reasons, I am not convinced by your thesis in the least.
You have, however, convinced me that Bobby Kotick is evil. Congrats.
For some people it does, even if they take some of this stuff much too seriously xD I didn't include the whole history of Blizzard or the "entire development cycle of SC2" because I: a) didn't try to make a point about that, b) didn't want to write and research for weeks and make this article even bigger with stuff that do nothing to further my argumentation and c) simply didn't know about, feel free to elaborate yourself
On May 31 2010 05:29 LastToNight wrote: My god... Speechless... I would like to THANK the former of this thread for the great work, i wish someone would do it earlier. Thats just means how blind we are and stuck in our virtual world. Kotick is doing an excelent job as CEO, i can just congratulate him on whats done. He brought a huge profit to the company he is running, meanless through what stepps. But im also happy that now i know what is really going on and will react accordinly.
Did anyone seriously doubt that everything was about money at any point?
On May 31 2010 05:29 Teddyman wrote: Activision doesn't have anything to do with SC2. Activision Blizzard does, as they own Blizzard. Blizzard publishes their own games.
You don't think that the merger with Activision has has any bearing on the development choices for SC2 and BNet2.0 whatsoever?
Yes, of course there was influence. That doesn't mean Activision, an entirely separate studio is providing input onto b-net 2.0. Perhaps the shareholders of Activision Blizzard are, but Activision as a studio is not.
I was under the impression that Activision is first and foremost a publisher and not a studio. Am I incorrect?
I think they're a mix of both. They have a bunch of studios owned by them and they also publish.
Okay, that's mostly how I pictured them. So generally speaking they make decisions from an executive/monetary perspective, and not from a quality perspective, right? This is essentially the direction I see Blizzard taking. Whether or not this is a result of pressure from the new company setup, I suppose I can't be sure, but I can't help but think that the merger did bad things for the products of Blizzard and their consumers.
On May 31 2010 05:29 Teddyman wrote: Activision doesn't have anything to do with SC2. Activision Blizzard does, as they own Blizzard. Blizzard publishes their own games.
You don't think that the merger with Activision has has any bearing on the development choices for SC2 and BNet2.0 whatsoever?
Yes, of course there was influence. That doesn't mean Activision, an entirely separate studio is providing input onto b-net 2.0. Perhaps the shareholders of Activision Blizzard are, but Activision as a studio is not.
I was under the impression that Activision is first and foremost a publisher and not a studio. Am I incorrect?
No, as a publisher which manages its own studios.
Let me illustrate.
The management models of Activision in relation to its own studios (IW-ward...etc) will not effect blizzard what so ever. But they both answer to the same board of directors, among them, Bob Kotick.
I think everyone has always known, it's obviously all about money at all times. You can only squeeze so much though..... and that whole catch more flies with honey thing. Seriously.
On May 31 2010 05:44 Uriel_SVK wrote: Last two weeks i was thinking about buying Modern Warfare 2 after my exams. It is 60 EUR but I liked Modern Warfare, and with Starcraft 2 Beta ending, I would have nothing to play for a few weeks. Afer reading this I pretty much changed my mind, Im not going to support such a group of greedy bastards. I can not even think about the money like a way to say "Thank you" to developers, because it is pretty much possible they will never see that money...
Starcraft 2 will be the last game, that I will buy, that has something in common with Activision. Like if I had to buy a game to be able to play it... God created things like Torrents and Rapidshare for situations like this...
I bought MW2 at launch... I wouldn't say I regret it but I'm not proud of it. I got hours and hours of enjoyment out of it, but I supported a business model that I and fundamentally opposed to. Paid DLC fractures the community and essentially forces gamers to pay if they want to remain part of the dominant sect.
I haven't played since the first DLC pack came out. I am very hesitant to buy SC2 at all because I'm afraid that it will take the same direction.
On May 31 2010 05:29 Teddyman wrote: Activision doesn't have anything to do with SC2. Activision Blizzard does, as they own Blizzard. Blizzard publishes their own games.
You don't think that the merger with Activision has has any bearing on the development choices for SC2 and BNet2.0 whatsoever?
Yes, of course there was influence. That doesn't mean Activision, an entirely separate studio is providing input onto b-net 2.0. Perhaps the shareholders of Activision Blizzard are, but Activision as a studio is not.
I was under the impression that Activision is first and foremost a publisher and not a studio. Am I incorrect?
No, as a publisher which manages its own studios.
Let me illustrate.
The management models of Activision in relation to its own studios (IW-ward...etc) will not effect blizzard what so ever. But they both answer to the same board of directors, among them, Bob Kotick.
Former Vivendi Games studios (save for Blizzard) are missing from your picture.
Vivendi Games + Activision = Activision Blizzard.
I'm not sure how stuff there works exactly, but I think simply all former Activision and Vivendi Games' studios are now under Activision Blizzard, while Blizzard itself has earned their independence thanks to WoW.
On May 31 2010 05:29 Teddyman wrote: Activision doesn't have anything to do with SC2. Activision Blizzard does, as they own Blizzard. Blizzard publishes their own games.
You don't think that the merger with Activision has has any bearing on the development choices for SC2 and BNet2.0 whatsoever?
Yes, of course there was influence. That doesn't mean Activision, an entirely separate studio is providing input onto b-net 2.0. Perhaps the shareholders of Activision Blizzard are, but Activision as a studio is not.
I was under the impression that Activision is first and foremost a publisher and not a studio. Am I incorrect?
No, as a publisher which manages its own studios.
Let me illustrate.
The management models of Activision in relation to its own studios (IW-ward...etc) will not effect blizzard what so ever. But they both answer to the same board of directors, among them, Bob Kotick.
On May 31 2010 05:29 Teddyman wrote: Activision doesn't have anything to do with SC2. Activision Blizzard does, as they own Blizzard. Blizzard publishes their own games.
You don't think that the merger with Activision has has any bearing on the development choices for SC2 and BNet2.0 whatsoever?
Yes, of course there was influence. That doesn't mean Activision, an entirely separate studio is providing input onto b-net 2.0. Perhaps the shareholders of Activision Blizzard are, but Activision as a studio is not.
I was under the impression that Activision is first and foremost a publisher and not a studio. Am I incorrect?
No, as a publisher which manages its own studios.
Let me illustrate.
The management models of Activision in relation to its own studios (IW-ward...etc) will not effect blizzard what so ever. But they both answer to the same board of directors, among them, Bob Kotick.
Former Vivendi Games studios (save for Blizzard) are missing from your picture.
Vivendi Games + Activision = Activision Blizzard.
I'm not sure how stuff there works exactly, but I think simply all former Activision and Vivendi Games' studios are now under Activision Blizzard, while Blizzard itself has earned their independence thanks to WoW.
On May 31 2010 05:29 Teddyman wrote: Activision doesn't have anything to do with SC2. Activision Blizzard does, as they own Blizzard. Blizzard publishes their own games.
You don't think that the merger with Activision has has any bearing on the development choices for SC2 and BNet2.0 whatsoever?
Yes, of course there was influence. That doesn't mean Activision, an entirely separate studio is providing input onto b-net 2.0. Perhaps the shareholders of Activision Blizzard are, but Activision as a studio is not.
I was under the impression that Activision is first and foremost a publisher and not a studio. Am I incorrect?
No, as a publisher which manages its own studios.
Let me illustrate.
The management models of Activision in relation to its own studios (IW-ward...etc) will not effect blizzard what so ever. But they both answer to the same board of directors, among them, Bob Kotick.
On May 31 2010 06:15 lotri wrote: So why exactly did Blizzard and Activision merge? It seems like Activision is bringing a new host of problems into their partnership with Blizzard.
Activision Blizzard, Inc., formerly Activision, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATVI) is the American holding company for Activision and Blizzard Entertainment, majority owned by French conglomerate Vivendi SA. The company is the result of a merger between Activision and Vivendi Games, announced on December 2, 2007 in a deal worth USD$18.8 billion. The deal closed July 9, 2008. The company believed that the merging of the two companies would create "the world’s largest and most profitable pure-play video game publisher". It believes that it is the only publisher that has "leading market positions across all categories" of the video game industry.
If everything is about money, then how do you distinguish good companies from bad companies?
Anyway I disagree everything is all about money , and I certainly think that it always hasn't always been, all about the money, at Blizzard. That is why they were so beloved among gamers. Now they are just another EA. At least EA has tried to make amends. I hope Blizzard can do the same.
On May 31 2010 06:21 teapot wrote: If everything is about money, then how do you distinguish good companies from bad companies?
Business practices. Long term investments. Reciprocative relationship with customers. Willingness to change. Understanding of the market. Ethical decisions (<-not applicable to video games for the most part)
On May 30 2010 10:50 Captain Peabody wrote: First, I'd like to commend you for taking the time to write your thoughts up in a clear and readable manner, do a reasonable amount of research, and not just flame Blizzard.
While you make no explicit argument in your post, it's pretty obvious what thesis you are trying to support. If I had to put it into words, it would be that "Blizzard has been negatively affected by the merger with Activision. They are now greedy like Activision." However, this thesis is totally and completely unsupported by the evidence you provide.
The first part seems about right, especially based on the pictures used that should be clearly implied, and yes it is biased based on my personal experiences and values. What I was trying to "prove" wasn't that they're completely "greedy" like Activision, but that they have well been influenced by it, even if their actual games are still good for the foreseeable future, they have that tainted feeling about it.
First of all, if you want to show that Blizzard is greedier now than they were, you have to provide some point of contrast; in other words, to show that there is a significant difference between the way Blizzard acted before the merger, and the way they act now, you have to provide a picture of what they were like before the merger that contrasts with the way they are now. Now, certainly you can reasonably assume (at least in this case) that most people know Blizzard's reputation, and are able to provide these contrasts themselves...but this does weaken what you're trying to say. And I think you'd find, if you actually looked at what Blizzard was like before the merger, you'd find more commonalities than you think.
I assumed people already know having played some of their previous titles... Personally (although starting with WarCraft I) I bought (some even multiple times), played and really enjoyed a lot of their older more obscure games like "The Lost Vikings I+II" and "Blackthorne"... If anyone hasn't played those and wants to see some of the old Blizzard quality in action... get them, they're awesome and was almost a total fanboy by the point Diablo II and WarCraft 3 came out, unfortunately the company policy took a slow turn for the worse with the release of World of Warcraft, its success and said merger...
The turning point came with Starcraft. You can’t say Warcraft and Warcraft 2 since Blizzard was considered an equal among various companies around that time. There are many companies that have a ‘hit game’. The pattern is that the company then descends into mediocrity either due to Industry men overmilking it to developers thinking they are artistic geniuses and ruining it. Success can be more fatal than failure in bringing down a company. ... Yes, folks, the above images are Starcraft. Someone who might not have seen these images, especially a young person, is probably already spewing, “Lies, Malstrom! That is not Starcraft! That is just Warcraft in space!” And you are exactly right. That is just Warcraft in space. And this is where part of the Turning Point for Blizzard came. The reaction from the public was ‘meh’ to Starcraft. If Blizzard was run by Industry men, they would have said, “We must meet our quarter deadline! Ship it!” If Blizzard was run rampant by out of control artists, they would have said, “These people just do not understand our genius. Ship it!” But Blizzard did not ship it. They went back and began doing a complete overhaul. Those Alpha images are pretty interesting outside of how bad they are. The art, even back then, was pretty interesting and very colorful. The units are interesting to look at even if the Zerg look like ladybugs on steroids. ... Now Mr. Reader, do you recognize your Starcraft now? “Yeah. But… not everything looks right. There are different units and different art. The engine is the same but there are many differences still.” Oh reader, you don’t know how right you are! When presented to the public again, people got excited about Starcraft. At this point, Industry men would say, “Ship it!” At this point, some artists would be so satisfied that they got a good response so they would ‘ship it’. But clearly from seeing the above images, the game was not shipped in that state. ... Far from just a marketing move, Blizzard is taking the Starcraft test very seriously and literally working day and night to apply finishing touches to the product. Blizzard staffers can be found on Battle.net during most hours of the day (you’ll even spot employees dialing in from home during the wee hours), fielding questions, accepting bug reports, and even challenging other players. You’d think the makers of the game would be plenty good at it, and you’d be absolutely right – GameSpot experienced Blizzard’s Starcraft prowess firsthand in a fierce Protoss versus Terran battle (let’s just say the Terrans have seen better days).
This was the time when Blizzard cared and more importantly listened to people, when they put their heart into it and it wasn't about "balance sheets", "business models" or "platforms". It was just a company of gamers, making games for other gamers and putting their all into it. I believe that most of them still do (maybe sans the enthusiasm from back in the day and more "professional"), but they're ultimately controlled by people that don't.
Besides that, though, the timeline you provide simply does not support your argument. 3/4ths of the things on the timeline are solely related to Activision and Bobby Kotick, which is great if you're trying to prove that Bobby Kotick is a jerk, but not so good if you're trying to prove that Blizzard are now greedy, uncaring bastards.
Him talking about wanting to mess with Blizzard is better, but still proves nothing, since most of the things he talks about simply haven't happened; which actually works directly against your thesis. There is no in-game advertising; there is pretty much no monetizing of Bnet whatsoever, and the services that Blizzard talks about in another quote are hardly unreasonable.
Oh but I think it does, because it makes the breach clear compared to how Blizzard operated before (and never overcharged or thought about monetizing every damn feature) and exposes that their business practices as seen today (building up from World of Warcraft and the point of the merger) have a lot more in common with the business practices of said Kotick (no matter how it came to be, if Kotick is directly involved and dictates everything, if he taught the Blizzard marketing thing how to "do business the right way" with those balance sheets or if he plays golf and eats lunch with Morhaime and has talks about the future of his company, directly influencing it) , who ultimately is one of the few in charge of big marketing decisions than their own back when they became "famous" and "world renowned".
If I could *prove* that he or Activision is behind it, I would instead just do that instead, and not bother researching the web insinuating things. Unfortunately there's no open documentation detailing all this or what goes on inside said companies open to the public to do it.
Let's talk, then, about the three or four actual relevant pieces of information you bring up about Blizzard's actions after the merger, information you arrange in such a fashion as to suggest that Blizzard is acting in a greedy or uncaring fashion, with the implication that this is due to Bobby Kotick and Activision: (1)WoW paid stuff. (2): Starcraft 2 being a Trilogy. (3): No LAN (4): Map Marketplace (5): Blizzcon ticket prices being raised (?) (6): Facebook integration.
Let's go through these one by one, shall we?
(1): WoW.
Okay...I'm going to be very clear with this. Adding paid stuff to WoW makes Blizzard money. Blizzard is a corporation, whose main purpose is to make money. These paid things are features, meaning they add some value if used. Features are good, even if they make money for the company who does them; they are especially good if the community wants them. They are only bad when they make money in such a fashion as to directly hurt the gameplay or the community. This is simply not the case here. Most of these features (such as paid character customization) came about largely at the behest of the community, are used widely by the community, and are generally enjoyed by them. In addition, none of them significantly affect gameplay. Remember: adding features is only a bad thing when it hurts the game or community in some way. Otherwise, it is a good thing. And if it's a feature that the community has asked for, it's a better thing.
Also, linking the use of paid features on WoW to Activision is highly questionable, considering the first of them actually was released a full year before the merger, in 2006.
However, one could, if one wished, link the recent "pet store" and "mount store" stuff to Activision, since it is more gameplay-related than the other features. However, they still do not affect gameplay, are totally cosmetic, and thus are VERY far away from the Kotick-style merchandising of games like Guitar Hero.
I guess this is one place where we fundamentally disagree...
While I do agree (and know) that companies are there to make money, they have a lot of different ways to do it, Blizzard made money before this didn't they? A lot of other companies are making money without slave labor or burning children for coal. It is this difference that distinguishes a good company from a profitable company at the expense of the consumer (which is also more narrow-minded, because it provides short-term profit, but leaves a company vulnerable in the long term)...
And there are a lot of examples where inherently "good" companies can be profitable as hell too, like Google, with all their free services... from Google Books, Earth/Maps, the Android platform being Open Source, they have news.google.com, finance.google.com, they bought YouTube at a loss and still operate it free (albeit with commercials here and there), they released the VP8 Codec as an Open Standard to be used by everyone for HTML5, the Google Language Tools can translate whole texts understandably from the most obscure languages into your own, they offer great working environments while even paying attention to operating "green": http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7292600.stm and more... They have and are basically changing the world, and all that mostly for free, while making most of their money with just Ads.
Sure there are some privacy concerns here too, but they aren't f...ing/exploiting their faithful/devoted customers by milking 30$ for a simple feature or 25$ for maybe 2 hours in a modeling program, saying they "requested" it... It is their right to do so, but(imo) morally it is a disgrace that Blizzard even considered doing that to people that already paid for their game, all add-ons and keep shelling out 13-15$ a month making them gazillions, and don't see why this is or should be defended.
Even going with your definition, their new plan for the "Remote Auction House" would actually hurt people IG, cause people could buy items others wanted using their iPhone or a Web Browser from wherever they are.
I'm going to be honest here. I am utterly sick and tired of people bringing this up as an example of Blizzard being greedy. It is so utterly wrong-headed and has been proven so so many times in so many ways I hardly know where to start. First of all, the other games are expansions, like BW, and will be priced like it. Secondly, the decision was made based on Blizzard's quality standards and in order not to delay the game too much. Thirdly, Blizzard had always, from the beginning of development, planned to have two expansions (probably originally to make up for what they knew would be an extra-long development cycle). Fourthly, Blizzard is jamming more content into each of these games then in the whole of SC1. I don't know how hard it is to get through people's skulls that Blizzard made the decision for the good of the game and the community. If someone seriously wants to argue that this is an example of Blizzard being greedy, I would be happy to drench him in sources that prove otherwise. Until then, this should suffice.
Are these three separate games? How much will all of these games cost?
The StarCraft II Trilogy will consist of the base StarCraft II game and two expansion sets. Pricing on these games hasn't been determined at this early stage; however, we've always charged an appropriate price for the content the player receives, and we will continue to release high-quality games that offer great value.
You can't know for a fact how they will be "priced".
2) All people that want to play the game at a competitive level, getting all the units and buildings, enjoy the newest maps etc. will have to pay for all 3 parts, especially in conjunction with "no LAN", requirements of all the keys for each account, regional restriction and several other restrictions this doesn't exactly seem like a good thing from the consumer side of things:
How will the expansion sets impact multiplayer gameplay?
The expansion sets will add new content to each race for use in multiplayer matches. This could include additions such as new units, abilities, and structures, along with new maps and Battle.net updates. If I buy StarCraft II but don't buy any of the expansion sets, will I still be able to play online?
Yes. This will work similarly to Warcraft III and the original StarCraft, which maintained separate online gaming lobbies and ladders for expansion set players and players with the base Warcraft III or StarCraft.
3) Each of the new "Expansions having as much content as StarCraft 1" arguments are a non-issue, considering both Brood War and The Frozen Throne, while being considered Add-Ons and being sold at a price point of 30$ and below also had 26/27 missions respectively WHILE having 3 different campaigns and different units/levels etc. for each. I don’t see where they come off praising themselves on this or using it as an excuse to charge more, seeing as it remained the same.
On a personal note I see it like this: WarCraft (1994): 2 Playable Races/Campaigns (Orcs & Humans) WarCraft 2 (1995): 2 Playable Races/Campaigns (Orcs & Humans) StarCraft (1998): 3 Playable Races/Campaigns (Humans, Zerg & Protoss) WarCraft 3 (2002): 4 Playable Races/Campaigns (Orcs, Humans, Nightelves & Undead) StarCraft 2 – Wings of Liberty (2010): 1 Playable Race (Humans) with a small Protoss "Mini"-Campaign
Having 3+ different campaigns to play through, that all started anew at some point and offered a completely new perspective and way of playing on things while not overstaying their welcome in the Single Player part of those games was one of the charms and quality features of previous Blizzard games for me. It still remains to be proven that 28+ missions with the same race and largely same units/base-building doesn't get boring in SP after a while.
The Map Marketplace is a great idea, frankly, and really, really good for the community. It provides one place where you can go to get custom maps, a big showroom for all the talented map-makers out there, and the fact that some (read: very, very few. Blizzard has said that only people who basically create their own game using the engine would get money) of the most talented map-makers out there will get money for doing the equivalent of making their own game using Blizzard's tools is great, and will provide the impetus for many great projects.
The fact that Blizzard is taking a percentage of the money involved is far from excessive, Kotick-style greed; all store sites take some amount of money from sellers in exchange for the notoriety and out-there-ness they're getting. And the fact that the map-makers will be using Blizzard's tools and Blizzard's engines only increases the fairness of the arrangement. And since we don't know how much Blizzard is going to take anyway (and I doubt it's even been decided yet) it's pretty much a moot point.
And the idea that Blizzard thought up this idea as a huge money-maker is somewhat absurd. Setting up and maintaining the system will cost a lot of time and money, and with the rules for "premium maps" that they've given us, I doubt they'll be making a lot of profit off of it. It's not anything near to selling cheap plastic guitars and drum sets.
So, again: adding a feature is not bad. Adding a feature with the intent of making money from that feature is also not bad, so long as it does not deleteriously affect the game or the community. In fact, it is good. The Map Marketplace is a great community tool, thought of with the good of the community in mind, that will also make Blizzard some amount of money. It does not support your thesis.
In short: It is not only a thing of money but also a thing of gaining control and future control over certain things, I think the community would have been a lot better off if they didn't intervene at all into this one and just left it like it was in WarCraft 3 for the most part.
Also I've already said stuff to the following points somewhere in this thread already and most of your disagreements still originate from your belief that every "feature", no matter how minor, bad, greedy, annoying etc. it is or the circumstances it came to be (like leaving something out of a game on purpose in the first place, to sell it later on or leaving something else out that was there before, people got used to and everyone wants back), no matter if a previous product had them already included or not and they should be considered standard is a "good" thing.
If they feel the need to include something like FaceBook, they can at least put a feature in to ignore/make said feature disappear, because for some people having "FaceBook" written all over their game is like waving a red blanket in front of a bull.
In conclusion, then, your evidence simply does not support your thesis. It does not support the "greedy bastard" conclusion, and does not show a significant link of this to Activision. You have selectively stuck various bits of "evidence" (most of which does not support your thesis) together in such a way as to form a narrative that supports what you had already concluded before you began looking for evidence. It is not convincing.
You also leave out a great deal of evidence that does not support your thesis: namely, the vast majority of Blizzard's actions over the past few years, the entire development cycle of SC2, etc.
For all these reasons, I am not convinced by your thesis in the least.
You have, however, convinced me that Bobby Kotick is evil. Congrats.
For some people it does, even if they take some of this stuff much too seriously xD I didn't include the whole history of Blizzard or the "entire development cycle of SC2" because I: a) didn't try to make a point about that, b) didn't want to write and research for weeks and make this article even bigger with stuff that do nothing to further my argumentation and c) simply didn't know about, feel free to elaborate yourself
There are alot of good arguments but you might want to check a few. The alpha images of "warcraft in space" have been reported multiple times to be fake and to have never existed. Warcraft2 was already a game way better than anything else available at the time, Blizzard was the best company because it had an excellent devteam (which split up/left during wow development), and there was not much interference with the devteam from the marketing division. After all they were producing consistently high quality games way better than anything else available. The interference started with wow and the devs who worked at warcraft and starcraft went on to arenanet to make guild wars. Which makes me think, if wow had a guild wars like pvp from the start, i would probably have played it. And with tme milions of other players. Instead i didn't even try wow out, a game that had no pvp in beta could only be trash.
So i see the turning point in the making of warcraft2, and the second turning point in the release of wow. Now there's nothing left from the original blizzard (save for that arrogant vice-president who didn't have the balls to leave when the others did), and it's just another gaming company, with starcraft2 being yet another rts, which will not have the longevity of blizzard's previous titles.
Seriously, out of all the shit thats being shoved up our mouths with b.net 2.0, the 2 expansions is not only not a problem, but the single best "innovation" to come to starcraft. A full fledged single player campaign in a RTS that contains things like out of mission advanced interaction and a meta-tech tree. Features that could not be done in a short 8-9 mission campaign.
The alpha images of "warcraft in space" have been reported multiple times to be fake and to have never existed
Not only is not not fake, I have a freakin gamespot article about it. Who besides you has reported them as fake? In fact, I have real life experience of the screenshots irl.
Blizzard was the best company because it had an excellent devteam (which split up/left during wow development)
Here you go making stuff up again. Some of the developers left. Not all of them left. For instance, Frank Pearce was a lead producer for the original starcraft.
The interference started with wow and the devs who worked at warcraft and starcraft went on to arenanet to make guild wars
Two people left. Some of the other devs that left went on to make pieces of shit like Hellgate London. A lot of the blizzard north crew got dropped after d2 failed to meet blizzards standards. (just goes to show you how high they were/are?) Some people left unannounced of course. Overall I'd venture at least 40% of the original dev team from sc are still around here and there. 60% of the lead designers and producers of SC1 were retained. Guys like http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,9172/
(Lead designer of SC1 and Senior designer of SC2)
To my knowledge, only David Kim and Dustin Browder are newcoming design leads.
However, perhaps getting the guy who worked on XBL and Popcap to do B-net 2.0 however, might not have been the best move. lol
...
Instead i didn't even try wow out
So you have absolutely no knowledge base to draw on.
The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games.
Mod edit: please don't make death threats.
Kotick is an idiot! Seriously! I remember the old days of WoW when you got free days when the servers were down. Zero chance of that happening now. Activision is just a bunch of money horney whores. I love Blizzard games but I hate that they made partnership with Activision. Worst thing Blizzard ever did. I get so mad when I read this post! Stupid Activision screws everything up. Funny thing is though that Kotick is honest about it and is not so discret about it. He must have some balls.....
I hope that Blizzard come to their senses real soon before more people realise what the hell is going on with Activision. Just look what they did to Infinity Ward. I hope IW wins in court and sews them for a shitload of money.
Great post D3xter. Love the research you did wonderful. Thumbs up! :D You shoud paste this into blizzards forums aswell and the WoW forums etc. So more people see this.
PS: Starcraft 2 being a trilogy is great because they get to make longer campaigns with a longer and better story jamming more content into it there for I think making it a trilogy will make the game better even if I have to pay more for it. Since StarCraft 2 Wings of Liberty will be longer than Starcraft 1, about 28 or 29 missions, THAT IS ALOT :D But I don't understand why people hate it so much that it will be a trilogy? :S I think it is for the better.
I wanna apologize for my language in my post. I wrote this in anger. I just hate Activision right now.....
On May 31 2010 07:16 Zemtex wrote: I remember the old days of WoW when you got free days when the servers were down. Zero chance of that happening now.
5/23/08 N/A One Day Credit 12/20/08 N/A Three Day Credit 12/23/08 N/A One Day Credit 7/22/09 N/A One Day Credit 12/28/09 N/A One Day Credit
Theres over a month of 1-5 day credits on my account since it came out.
Largely dependant on where you played and servers are also exploding alot less now.
There hasn't been anything being sold for IRL funbucks that are anything more than cosmetic/aesthetics and they've been pretty solid on that stance still.
The WoW dev team is probobly the least messed up over at Blizzard at the moment, maybe D3 too but that front has been silent for the most part.
rofl what an asshole (kotick) riccitiello (ea boss) is an angel against him yes he even stated more quality games and less quantity and ea made this happen (not with their sports games of course) i cant believe someone like kotick exists, this guy shouldnt be responsible for games at all, but hopefully in the longer run it will pay back
[QUOTE]On May 31 2010 05:45 D3xter wrote: [QUOTE]On May 30 2010 10:50 Captain Peabody wrote: There's also enough articles to provide that contrast on the Web, a really great one: SERIOUSLY, DO READ THIS, can be found here called "How Blizzard became Blizzard": [url=http://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/how-blizzard-became-blizzard/]http://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/how-blizzard-became-blizzard/[/url]
Some excerpts: [quote]The turning point came with Starcraft. You can’t say Warcraft and Warcraft 2 since Blizzard was considered an equal among various companies around that time. There are many companies that have a ‘hit game’. The pattern is that the company then descends into mediocrity either due to Industry men overmilking it to developers thinking they are artistic geniuses and ruining it. Success can be more fatal than failure in bringing down a company. ... Yes, folks, the above images are Starcraft. Someone who might not have seen these images, especially a young person, is probably already spewing, “Lies, Malstrom! That is not Starcraft! That is just Warcraft in space!” And you are exactly right. That is just Warcraft in space. And this is where part of the Turning Point for Blizzard came. The reaction from the public was ‘meh’ to Starcraft. If Blizzard was run by Industry men, they would have said, “We must meet our quarter deadline! Ship it!” If Blizzard was run rampant by out of control artists, they would have said, “These people just do not understand our genius. Ship it!” But Blizzard did not ship it. They went back and began doing a complete overhaul. Those Alpha images are pretty interesting outside of how bad they are. The art, even back then, was pretty interesting and very colorful. The units are interesting to look at even if the Zerg look like ladybugs on steroids. ... Now Mr. Reader, do you recognize your Starcraft now? “Yeah. But… not everything looks right. There are different units and different art. The engine is the same but there are many differences still.” Oh reader, you don’t know how right you are! When presented to the public again, people got excited about Starcraft. At this point, Industry men would say, “Ship it!” At this point, some artists would be so satisfied that they got a good response so they would ‘ship it’. But clearly from seeing the above images, the game was not shipped in that state. ... Far from just a marketing move, Blizzard is taking the Starcraft test very seriously and literally working day and night to apply finishing touches to the product. Blizzard staffers can be found on Battle.net during most hours of the day (you’ll even spot employees dialing in from home during the wee hours), fielding questions, accepting bug reports, and even challenging other players. You’d think the makers of the game would be plenty good at it, and you’d be absolutely right – GameSpot experienced Blizzard’s Starcraft prowess firsthand in a fierce Protoss versus Terran battle (let’s just say the Terrans have seen better days).[/quote]
This was the time when Blizzard cared and more importantly listened to people, when they put their heart into it and it wasn't about "balance sheets", "business models" or "platforms". It was just a company of gamers, making games for other gamers and putting their all into it. I believe that most of them still do (maybe sans the enthusiasm from back in the day and more "professional"), but they're ultimately controlled by people that don't.
Yet at the end of the article he mocks people like you
I'm not even concerned about the 3 expansions or the money sinks they're trying to make in SC2. I think the bigger problem here is that B.Net2 is going to TAKE OUT key features and expect people to bend over and pay retarded fees. I'm going to get the game regardless, but the current state of sc2 is ....
The new company map features one business unit focused squarely on the Call of Duty franchise, another overseeing Activision-owned brands such as Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero, and a third unit to handle licensed properties. Blizzard Entertainment rounds out the fourth unit but interestingly, Blizzard's Mike Morhaime now reports directly to newly appointed chief operating officer Thomas Tippl, who in turn reports to Activision CEO Bobby Kotick.
"This is an important change as it will allow me, with Thomas, to become more deeply involved in areas of the business where I believe we can capture great potential and opportunity," Kotick said in the employee memo.
"Performance shares" are, according to Investopedia, "shares of company stock given to managers only if certain company wide performance criteria are met, such as earnings per share targets." Meaning, in so many words, that Activision has to meet a certain performance level in order for Tippl to earn said shares. That they will "vest ratably" is only to say that on Feb. 15 of each year for the next four years, he will earn part of that eventual 225,000-share goal (in 2014) ... should he stay in his position for all that time, of course. And finally, this is all based on the prediction that he delivers a higher or equal to non-GAAP earning per share when compared to the previous year. In short, he has to either break even or make money to get the stocks, and he has to maintain that for the next four years. Quite a tall order, sir!
Also, a YouTube Interview with Kotick about the merger and "Social gaming" from back in the day when it took place (2008) xD
I'd really like to see the agreement between Activision/Blizzard and FaceBook.
I'd love to actually see if it says,"Do everything possible to Pigeon Hole everyone who buys SC2 into having a FaceBook account. Make it everything but a stated system requirement."
Talking about esports and trying to build a community- they really couldn't possibly be that stupid. Without CrossRealm play on the same Game... it's 100% the case of modern PR, from government to TV to Gaming now: Say 1 thing and do the opposite. And if people ask questions, play dumb, restate the stated objective and continue to do the opposite. It's how we start wars, how we have garbage for TV news, and how how we make video games. Because they think there is literally NOTHING that we can do about it.
In the long run Blizzard will sell less games because of this. You may sell more for the first year, but if you think this will snowball like Starcraft 1 did or WoW... they have another thing coming. The setup is a short term business model based on Quarterly Profit that will doom them in the long term.
From day 1 I said Kotick was going to be a problem; and he's certainly living up to expectations. What he has gotten away with saying without a serious grilling from the community is just remarkable. Gamers have to stop being fickle consumers and start rallying together to boycot games and evoke a proper response in the bigwigs.
The only power we have in the boardroom is to vote with our wallets, and though that's often cited it's rarely actually effected on account of how addicted we all are.
Somewhere along the line though, there's got to be a straw that breaks that camel's back, and I think I'm nearing mine.
Makes me hate Kotick even more every time I read a quote from him. I understand that they're a business and need money to function, but you need to know where to draw the line.
I almost hate to say it, but I hope that entire company fails. I hope no one buys their products anymore and their stock goes down the shitter. I'm canceling my pre-order. They get no more of my money.
This is actually one of the best game-related articles ive read. Can anyone buy this game with a clean conscience after reading this? Only thing lacking is that they produce their copies of the game in some chinese factory where the employees aren't allowed to go to the bathroom and earn a cent per hour.
This is disgusting. If there was ever any hesitation about buying the game or not, they are actually all gone now. I'd rather spend my $60 on Save the Children or something like that.
Corporatism has come to Starcraft. These greed-inspired actions by Blizzard/Activision are meant to enrich the few people at the top at the expense of the masses. They have power and wield it to help themselves while hurting others. They want to drive down our quality of living to give themselves more/better possessions and more pleasant living.
wow this guy is running blizzard to the ground. back in those days, i always tell ppl that blizz can put cow dung in a box and i will buy it. i never thought the CEO of activision-blizzard actually took my advice and went further with it.
Apart from the fact that Bobby Kotick is a douchebag, it's mainly just a lot of stuff about business being run like a business.
I think we've all seen the shift in Blizzard's philosophy from delivering the best possible value to the Kotick philosophy of wringing every last dollar from every IP, regardless of how that dilutes the product. Sadly, this is not unique to A-B, which is just following in the well established footprints of Electronic Arts, makers of 20 versions of madden, 3764745 versions of the sims, 84657865 versions of command and conquer, and so on.
It's terrible for the future of video games, but it's pretty clear that the video games industry is run by accountants and not by creative types. Just like every other "creative" industry,
Bobby Kotick is a sociopath, but investors like sociopaths because investors don't see companies as collections of people, they see companies as collections of dollars. Kotick treats his employees, his customers, and the media like they are an inconvenient necessity that he would gladly scrape from his shoe when they cease to be of use to him. He treats them as means to an end, and the only end that matters apart from his own ego is money. As long as the investors are happy, then Kotick can feed his ego and his bank account, and as long as the investors are making money, the investors will be happy.
Where you and I see games as works of art, Bobby Kotick sees them as just another commodity, like Toothpaste or Chocolate Bars. That's why it never occurs to him how wrong or bizarre it is to put executives from Nestle and Proctor and Gamble in charge of a video game studio.
Right now it's up to consumers, and the employees of the video game monoliths to adjust. If every one just takes it, then Kotick and his ilk have no reason at all to re think their strategy. If consumers just pay for the privelege of eating hastily cooked McGames, and creative employees accept being treated like a fry cook, just for the awesome privilege of being allowed to make soul less works of corporate greed, then this trend will only worsen.
Problem with Kotick is, everyone hates him, but he's damn good at what he does. He's making a ton of cash for Activision, despite people threatening boycotts etc etc, what he does WORKS.
Look at all the complaints and petitions about MW2, and its like the best-selling game ever.
Your welcome. And thanks for taking the time to respond in a non-flamey fashion. It's much appreciated.
The first part seems about right, especially based on the pictures used that should be clearly implied, and yes it is biased based on my personal experiences and values. What I was trying to "prove" wasn't that they're completely "greedy" like Activision, but that they have well been influenced by it, even if their actual games are still good for the foreseeable future, they have that tainted feeling about it.
They have "that tainted feeling" about them? Really?
The reason Blizzard makes good games is due to their company atmosphere, design philosophy, and development schedules. If you admit their games are just as good as they were, then you're de facto admitting that none of these things have changed that significantly.
But sure, the fact that a company you like is associated in some way with a company and a person you hate is bound to leave a bad taste in your mouth. But if you're basing your whole outlook on the former company on that feeling, then that's problematic.
I assumed people already know having played some of their previous titles... Personally (although starting with WarCraft I) I bought (some even multiple times), played and really enjoyed a lot of their older more obscure games like "The Lost Vikings I+II" and "Blackthorne"... If anyone hasn't played those and wants to see some of the old Blizzard quality in action... get them, they're awesome and was almost a total fanboy by the point Diablo II and WarCraft 3 came out, unfortunately the company policy took a slow turn for the worse with the release of World of Warcraft, its success and said merger...
But, see, the problem is, you again have no actual detailed image or timeline as you do now...only a general image that can be easily changed and obscured by nostalgia. Blizzard has always made great games...but the thing is, even you admitted they're still making very good (great is debatable) games, and they're following the same design tenets they were then, with even longer development schedules than before. You may not like WoW, but there's no denying it even at release showed Blizzard's attention to detail, quality, and polish; and these are the things that have sustained it since.
And since WoW's success, their company policy in regards to release dates and development schedules simply has not changed. Their company policy in regards to quality standards has not changed. Indeed, the main thing WoW's success has done is give them a secure financial base from which to implement that policy and philosophy...
This was the time when Blizzard cared and more importantly listened to people, when they put their heart into it and it wasn't about "balance sheets", "business models" or "platforms". It was just a company of gamers, making games for other gamers and putting their all into it. I believe that most of them still do (maybe sans the enthusiasm from back in the day and more "professional"), but they're ultimately controlled by people that don't.
The thing is, for the development schedule of SC2, we've had a front-row seat through almost every stage of development. We've seen the game shift, change, we've seen the hard decisions being made, we've gotten angry about those decisions, heard directly from the people who made them, and seen the game take shape. And development of a game is frankly a very messy process; it which involves release dates, quarterly forecasts, discussions of money and profits, and the basic question of how to make enough money off the game to make it financially worthwhile.
And it was the same when SC1 was being made. But the thing is, we just didn't see that side of development with SC1. The developers of SC1 had to deal with finances and questions of how much time and money to spend on the game, questions of if they were ever going to make a profit off of it, questions on how to make ends meet; indeed, they had to deal with it much more then, in a new software company struggling to make ends meet, then in the present with the comfortable flow of cash from WoW. But we didn't see it. We didn't see the charts and graphs and quarterly forecasts...but they most certainly did.
Your perception of them as a "company of gamers making games for other gamers" is nice and true, but it's colored by nostalgia. They were gamers, they made games for other gamers, but they were still part of a corporation run by businessmen. Blizzard has always had to deal with "meddling from above" in the corporate ladder; in their lifespan, they've been owned by a total of five different corporations; they've faced mergers, sales, and financial difficulties.
The thing is, you're acting like the current situation, being owned by a financially-minded corporation with an eye towards the bottom line, is something unprecedented; it's not. Blizzard has for most of its life dealt with exactly that situation. And if you compare Bobby Kotick's statements about his plans for Blizzard with what's actually happened, I think you'll find they're dealing with it now. Blizzard isn't some innocent rabbit unaware of financial pressures and the temptation to cut quality in order to make a profit until it suddenly married Darth Vader; it's a hardened veteran that's earned its space to do what it does quite often through sheer stubbornness. And it's not going to give that up for Kotick or anyone.
And Blizzard development teams are still the same as they were then, gamers making games for gamers. If you've read an interview with Dustin Browder, or talked to the guy, you know what I mean. The guy is passionate about the game, he's passionate about making it great, as everyone who's met him can attest; and he's basically a colossal nerd and gamer. And if you've read any interviews with other members of the dev team, then you'll know that this attitude is near universal. Little has changed in the Blizzard dev teams. You can dispute their development philosophies, but you can't deny their passion.
But, forget all that: in the excerpt you quote in your post, you have provided us with a specific frame of reference. And if anything, it only shows how little Blizzard has changed over these years.
When SC2 was first announced, it looked like this:
In response to fan complaints, Blizzard almost completely overhauled the look of the game. Color saturation was reduced, "grittiness" was added back, Protoss team colors overhauled; the game looks totally different now than it did then.
A complete overhaul of the engine was not necessary at this point, for the main reason that roughly 2-4 years (minus the WoW break) had been spent on developing the engine. If Blizzard was run by industry men, they could have simply re-used the WC3 engine, or used another engine on the market, but they took the time necessary to turn out a totally new, well-crafted, and flexible engine that allowed them to do everything they needed to do with it. [Also note that a 3D engine is a lot more complex to put together than a 2D engine; no one could ever put together a 3D engine like SC2s or overhaul it in anything like 2 months.]
Then, they spent three years developing the game while giving the community a great deal of access to that development, with Blizzcons, Battle Reports, etc. Three years. If you've read any of the articles from past live events where the game was played, you'll know that SC2 has been in a playable state for most of that time. Heck, it's been in a polished playable state, a state more polished and balanced than most of the RTS games that come out, for most of that time. If Blizzard was run by industry men, they would have shipped the game years ago. But instead, they changed it around, messed with it, added and removed units, until they thought it was good enough.
Blizzard started the campaign, and decided that, instead of simply creating another linear campaign, they were going to create something bigger, better, more exciting, something revolutionary. And it became so big, and so deep, that they realized it would take years to complete just one of the three. If Blizzard was run by industry men, they would have balked at it, and made a simple campaign rather than delay the game. But they didn't.
And as if that wasn't enough, once they had built the campaign, set everything up that needed to be set up, they set a rough release date, working tirelessly towards that. But in the end, they decided that the game simply wasn't ready, that the campaign wasn't cool enough, Battle.net not good enough; and they delayed it for another year. If Blizzard was run by industry men, they would have released it in 2009 regardless of what state the game was in (which had to have been pretty good).
For Beta, Blizzard has made large changes to just about every race. New abilities have been added and some removed, changes made to the AI, etc. And the dev team is quite literally working around the clock to get it out there; they're basically living in the office right now. They're in "crunch mode." And they're on Battle.net, too, playing games against people. David Kim, the balance designer, plays in the top levels of the game; CowGoMoo, a QA person, also is in the top echelons.
So tell me; looking at this, besides the change in technology and time (a three year dev cycle as opposed to 5-7 years), tell me the huge, massive difference in the picture you see here.
Oh but I think it does, because it makes the breach clear compared to how Blizzard operated before (and never overcharged or thought about monetizing every damn feature) and exposes that their business practices as seen today (building up from World of Warcraft and the point of the merger) have a lot more in common with the business practices of said Kotick (no matter how it came to be, if Kotick is directly involved and dictates everything, if he taught the Blizzard marketing thing how to "do business the right way" with those balance sheets or if he plays golf and eats lunch with Morhaime and has talks about the future of his company, directly influencing it) , who ultimately is one of the few in charge of big marketing decisions than their own back when they became "famous" and "world renowned".
If I could *prove* that he or Activision is behind it, I would instead just do that instead, and not bother researching the web insinuating things. Unfortunately there's no open documentation detailing all this or what goes on inside said companies open to the public to do it.
Again, you act like Blizzard has never actually had to think about money and finances before now, as if Mike Morhaime never had to deal with a CEO who wanted to make more money off their properties.
And the monetization of certain features actually is to the benefit of the game and the consumer in some cases. Take something like character re-customization; WoW is based around a persistent character, and if people were able to change that too easily, that would have deletrious effects on the integrity of the game...but at the same time, it is a feature that many people want, and as long as its used sparingly it doesn't hurt the game. By requiring payment for it, Blizzard gives the people who really want it this feature what they want, and by making it cost money, they keep it rare enough that only the dedicated players who really care about this kind of thing (read: not all that many people) will use it. The same holds true for server transfers (Blizzard wants you to play with the same group of people in general).
And, frankly, these kinds of small features simply didn't exist in past generations of games...so there's no direct comparison even with something like a mount store. In the end, though, it's still cosmetic, and it makes Blizzard money. It's not morally praiseworthy, but it's also not deleterious to the game.
You can't know for a fact how they will be "priced".
Everyone and their brother at Blizzard has called them expansion sets, referred to them as such, etc. They have also said that they will be priced according to their content. Blizzard wouldn't give away prices this far in advance anyway. The logical and natural deduction is that they will be priced thusly.
Saying they're greedy because no one can prove that they won't over-charge is simply a bad argument.
2) All people that want to play the game at a competitive level, getting all the units and buildings, enjoy the newest maps etc. will have to pay for all 3 parts, especially in conjunction with "no LAN", requirements of all the keys for each account, regional restriction and several other restrictions this doesn't exactly seem like a good thing from the consumer side of things:
Okay, let's talk about expansions. Expansions exist almost totally for financial reasons; they exist to allow a company to make up some of the development costs by using the already-created resources to create new content and sell it.
The reason BW exists is in order to make up for the losses incurred over the long development time for SC1. Blizzard also licensed two other expansion packs at the same time, for the same reasons; they were frankly pretty bad, and are little know today.
And let me also be clear about something else: SC2 is not going to make Blizzard a profit. They have worked on this game for upwards of seven years. For about five years, they have been paying a full development team, and making not a penny off of it; they have hired professional voice actors and voice actors, paid writers and composers and a full orchestra. The amount of money spent on this project is astronomical. Even if SC2 sells as well as they're hoping, the project is going to be heavily in the red when all is said and done.
And it's probably been the same way for a lot of Blizzard's games. It almost certainly was that way for SC1. SC1 made a profit only with the help of the BW expansion and ten years of sales.
But by the time Blizzard got to SC2, they were prepared for it, and they knew the development cycle was going to be long; heck, by the time they got to work in earnest, it had already been long, and their plans were extremely ambitious and time-consuming. And so, as numerous interviews attest, they had calculated long before the idea of splitting the campaigns that it would take two expansions for them to make a profit off of the project. And it will; SC2 will probably not make a cent of profit for Blizzard until the second expansion pack is out.
But Blizzard in SC1 also was committed to making sure that the expansion simply wasn't a cheap money grab; that the people get their money's worth when they bought the expansion, with enough content to make it worth their while. And Blizzard is committed to the same thing with SC2. In interviews, Dustin Browder has affirmed that they want to make sure that everyone gets their money's worth as well; with this in mind, they're going to be creating two totally unique campaigns of 30 missions with totally different mechanics and with a totally different experience than the Terran campaign. And they're going to be adding multiplayer units, abilities, etc.
The expansions are going to be packed full of content, and there's even question (by Browder in interviews especially) if they're going to be able to get them out fast enough to make it worth their while. BW came out the same year as the original SC. SC2's expansions are going to take significantly more time, and they're going to have as much content as a full game.
This is hardly greed, and if anything it is less greedy than Blizzard in the past.
Each of the new "Expansions having as much content as StarCraft 1" arguments are a non-issue, considering both Brood War and The Frozen Throne, while being considered Add-Ons and being sold at a price point of 30$ and below also had 26/27 missions respectively WHILE having 3 different campaigns and different units/levels etc. for each. I don’t see where they come off praising themselves on this or using it as an excuse to charge more, seeing as it remained the same.
Don't make me laugh. SC2's campaign is many times more complex in terms of design than SCs. The BW campaign could be designed in the map editor in a month without any trouble; the SC2 campaign contains oodles of mechanics, units, abilities, art, tilesets, etc not found in the multiplayer. It took Blizzard years to develop, and they're going to be starting again from almost the ground up for each of the expansions, building an almost totally different system
Again, if this be greed, I'd hate to see charity.
Having 3+ different campaigns to play through, that all started anew at some point and offered a completely new perspective and way of playing on things while not overstaying their welcome in the Single Player part of those games was one of the charms and quality features of previous Blizzard games for me. It still remains to be proven that 28+ missions with the same race and largely same units/base-building doesn't get boring in SP after a while.
Sure, it's a tradeoff. In exchange for not getting an experience of newness that often, you get a much deeper and longer experience. You obviously feel one way about it; but that's only your opinion, and many people would disagree with you on it. It remains to be seen whether it's a trade-off that's worth it...but regardless, it's a design decision, not one based on money or greed.
In short: It is not only a thing of money but also a thing of gaining control and future control over certain things, I think the community would have been a lot better off if they didn't intervene at all into this one and just left it like it was in WarCraft 3 for the most part.
Also I've already said stuff to the following points somewhere in this thread already and most of your disagreements still originate from your belief that every "feature", no matter how minor, bad, greedy, annoying etc. it is or the circumstances it came to be (like leaving something out of a game on purpose in the first place, to sell it later on or leaving something else out that was there before, people got used to and everyone wants back), no matter if a previous product had them already included or not and they should be considered standard is a "good" thing.
Many informed people in the community disagree with you. In the end, I am confident it is good for the community. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
And, just to make it clear, an optional feature is good if it adds value and does not negatively affect the game or take away a core feature from people who choose not to use it. I think I made it clear in my last post, but whatever.
If they feel the need to include something like FaceBook, they can at least put a feature in to ignore/make said feature disappear, because for some people having "FaceBook" written all over their game is like waving a red blanket in front of a bull.
If you don't like it, you don't have to use it. If seeing the Facebook logo makes you angry, then frankly that's your business, and your problem.
For some people it does, even if they take some of this stuff much too seriously xD I didn't include the whole history of Blizzard or the "entire development cycle of SC2" because I: a) didn't try to make a point about that, b) didn't want to write and research for weeks and make this article even bigger with stuff that do nothing to further my argumentation and c) simply didn't know about, feel free to elaborate yourself
Well, sure, I know you were trying to make a point, and I agree you don't have to include everything in the world. But hopefully, I've shown in this post that the evidence you leave out speaks against your point, as my last post attempted to show that the evidence you include does not really necessitate your conclusion.
Because that's the thing about most of the evidence you present in the OP. It could be taken the way you say...or it could just as easily not be. At best, you've created a plausible narrative that could or could not be true; at worst, you've created a blatant falsehood. But because you have not included so much evidence, the narrative you give simply cannot conclusively prove your thesis. And the evidence you have not included goes a long way towards disproving it.
That pretty much sums up all that I had smelled from BNET 2.0. Less freedom, more control, profit is the end that justifies all means. Vivendi getting it's nose in Blizzard does not smell good on the paper anyway.
With the rapid expansion and success of the internet video game sphere, I guess it was unavoidable. That's how capitalism goes :/
Im' buying the game (the 1st one, Wings of Liberty) because I'm a fan, that's fine but I won't spend a single buck in any of that customizing BS.
edit : Btw thx for the article TS, really well written and interesting.
On May 31 2010 14:12 Subversion wrote: Problem with Kotick is, everyone hates him, but he's damn good at what he does. He's making a ton of cash for Activision, despite people threatening boycotts etc etc, what he does WORKS.
Look at all the complaints and petitions about MW2, and its like the best-selling game ever.
=/
Not exactly accurate. The best selling part is on the xbox and PS3. The whole controversy was on the pc and PC sales were roughly estimated to be about 6% of total sales.
There's an article stating that MW2 on the pc experienced 550% piracy.
Anyway, the next game in the series has corrected all the controversy but it is being developed by another studio.
B.net 2.0 is xbox live on the PC. That's like taking a car and replacing the steering wheel with handle bars, removing air bags, getting rid of AC/Heating, the radio and a clock and barely leaving the tools to use your turn signal.
There will be chat rooms, they're just not making launch. Probably. So Frank was out for interviews in EU it seems (?) and said something to the effect of "no chat rooms" but there would be chat for guilds and groups. Which is more or less what was said before. That it would be more about getting people into focused discussions instead of just having free for all chat systems. In any case, I don't know a lot about it. Personally, chat rooms are soooooo 2002.
And they're thinking of adding cross realm support too:
Here's the last thing that was said on region locking (this was Sigaty btw):
Q: How far in the 'long term' are those plans which allow for swapping to U.S. servers on an E.U. account - or a global account? A: Jumping to the region you want is definitely in the long term plan for Battle.net, although we do have some concerns about communicating properly to the player what's happening if they choose this because it WILL affect the latency of the game. As far as a date on when, I don't have one yet. There are a number of features that we want to make sure get out their first and jumping to different servers is lower on the priority list at the moment.
Hope it's not old news, but there's a glimmer of hope anyway. Source
I could handle WoW. Dealing WoW isn't much different than dealing crack. I don't have anything against crack dealers.
Fucking with Starcraft, on the other hand, is damning. Fuck Blizzard.
P.S.
Why are you hating on capitalism when it's not capitalism that sucks? People suck. Capitalism is fine. Without capitalism you don't have economic freedom. Economic freedom is simply freedom to choose what you do with what you have. If you don't like what people do when they do what they want, then you don't like people. There's nothing wrong with freedom. There is no sane alternative to capitalism.
Your choice is whether or not you buy Starcraft 2. As with any good prisoner's dilemma, your choice doesn't matter. Your opinion won't be heard unless you can get a few million people to echo it.
Either Starcraft 2 is worth $50 to you, or it isn't. What does the question have to do with the moral qualities of ActiBlizz?
The one thing that pisses me off about Activison the most is just how unashamed Kotick is about being a parasite. I almost have to wonder if between him and EA the gaming industry won't just wither and die.
In the investment world, Bob Kotick (activision ceo) is considered a huge drag on the company by most analysts. Activision's stock hasn't gone anywhere and many people point to him as the reason.
Captain Peabody's post on page 24 was quite long but it really helped me ponder a totally different perspective in this tumultuous climate of nerd rage.
Well done. You've not only successfully put into perspective a looming issue in the videogame industry, but plastered a bullseye on one incredibly well-deserving target. The only question that remains is, what we as consumers can do to help shield our beloved Blizzard Entertainment, a company that has shown benevolent disregard (by traditional corporate standards) for the pursuit of financial gains in lieu of providing excellent service and products to their loyal fanbase, from the capitalist onslaught of it's majority-partner, and cruel overseer, Activision.
Robert Kotick is just plain evil. He has advanced beyond everyday evil, and transgressed into the realm of cartoonish super-villainry ala Mr. Burns in the "Who Shot Mr. Burns?" episode of the Simpsons. I mean we're talking Prison-Wardon-from-Shawshank-Redemption-Evil. We all know what happened to the individuals in these examples....
:/ Surprising so many people didn't get this feeling already. $$$>"Hardcore niche groups" interest.
Soccermoms and casuals now make up the majority of gamers, they have the most power when it comes to a games conception.
Activision is going to milk the ever living hell outta blizzard's track record for max profits and drive blizzard into the ground and just buy out the next gaming company that "appears" to care for gamers and has any originality.
I hope you like facebook integration and wowlike policies for the rest of blizzards cash cow franchises, gonna be funny seeing micro transactions in Diablo and difficulty lowered to match brain dead monkeys who wanna get full armor sets in a couple weeks or less, cause we all know "excessive" hours playing games to get anywhere is unattractive to little timmy with mommy's credit card in pocket.
FYI,guys, there are some really interesting or disturbing insights about our "beloved" Kotick with these 2 links from Kotaku. Take it as a pinch of salt,as this could be sensationalized news.
Back then, when Guitar Hero first came out,it was published by Activision. Then, Kotick thinks that Harmonix is some failed developer,so he bought Red Octane instead. Forward to present day, what happen to Red Octane and Harmonix?
Harmonix is still alive and kicking with their competitor, EA again, while Red Octane is dying. Same thing happen with CoD's veterans who are now in a publishing deal with EA under the banner of Respawn Entertainment.
Activision didnt just killed Call of Duty,they killed Guitar Hero too. Now Starcraft 2 is the next on the chopping board. They are definitely gonna kill it in one way or another.
Also, a nice read on how shallow Kotick is,with some quotes.
"Maxis? "When Maxis was getting sold everyone was being sold on Sim City 2000 being this fantastic product that was incredibly late and wasn't coming out." Kotick went to visit some executives at the company. In another office, Will Wright was working on a game called Jefferson. Kotick didn't meet with Wright. No one could explain the game to him. What Kotick missed was the game that would become the Sims."
"Blizzard? He should have bought them sooner. He had thought that a subscription version of World of Warcraft was "the silliest thing" he'd ever heard of."
""When we were buying Guitar Hero, or buying Red Octane, the makers of Guitar Hero, we knew about Harmonix," Kotick said. "We had always known them as sort of somewhat a failed developer of music games." Activision decided that their own studio, Neversoft, made good games, so they would make Guitar Hero from now on, not the Boston-based Harmonix. He said that had Activision met with Harmonix, things would have been very different."
On May 31 2010 01:34 UnderWorld_Dream wrote: Huge work into this, and very interesting.
I hate money whores and i don't want my favorite game to be a product for the $profit of someone. But let's face it, the goal of any compagny is to make benifits and the more they do, the more they will try to do.
For those saying: 'im not buying sc2 anymore': Well, are you really gonna sacrifice all the fun and entertainement you could have with this game because of that guy? You dont wanna lend your money to them? Well thats also a greedy comment IMO I mean, not being willing to buy a game because the owners are looking for profit is kinda greedy in itself, isnt it ?
Just leave the money-minded people focused on their profits. I will be focusing on playing the game because that is what I like.
They can have all the money they want i just don't care. I will have more fun than them in life then. Com on guys don't let this ruin your game.
EDIT Hey this is a Starcraft progaming forum. Do not discourage people from buying the game in here, what the hell?
This post just made me rage.
I'm greedy for not wanting to pay a significant amount of money (at least $150 for all 3 campaigns + more if I want cross realm play) for an unfinished game that developers have not even been showing signs of listening to what the people want?
Oh and this is a STARCRAFT programing forum (for now) not a STARCRAFT 2 progaming forum, as it kind of doesn't exist.
Yay for Blizzard run e-sports I guess
I'm only saying that being so concerned by the cost of the game is somehow greedy. But it's my opinon you can disagree i'm totally fine with it.
It's a matter of how much you love something and how much you are willing to pay for it. Some people would not pay 5$ for sc2 while i would pay 200$ and woulndt care. (of course i would find it expensive but i'd just drink less beer??)
Sadly this world is ran by profits and whatever you could do, it won't change.
WTF, just WTF. Dude... Im speechless. How is this greed, obviously u have no idea what greed is. Its like if Ferrari and some cheap, crappy but good looking chinese car would cost the same. Would you really spend your money on that peace of junk instead of ferrari? Starcraft 2 feels loose, not finished and just massed up to get fast money type game. All they do is talk, talk, talk, promote, talk, talk, hype people with all their events, talk and once again talk. They dont actually do anything.
Nice write up, but this isn't too surprising since Kotick is the devil in the gaming industry and you can ask almost any well informed gamer who knows about the industry will say the same thing. Ever since the success of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Kotick decided to kick it into gear and start releasing CoD titles every year. In fact, a new CoD title is due to hit this fall (last CoD game was Modern Warfare 2, which came out around November 2009). Activision had no problem removing InfinityWard, who were the guys behind the "good" CoD games because they have Treyarch, who is another CoD developer, and they hired a 3rd studio recently.
In all, I just hope, this won't affect Blizzard too much. I like the beta so far, but it doesn't have the same love that I have with SC1. I'm sure that will change over time with the full release.
Activision/Blizzard is taking the bet that SC2 players will tolerate being treated like garbage in order to play the best RTS on the market. The community has been complaining forever about these problems, but none of it will matter if you show up to Best Buy and lay down your $50-60 on day one.
Your money speaks much louder than any forum post. Withhold your cash until some big changes are made.
Too bad people are stupid enouph to spend their money on these things, else they woulnd keep doing it, you can say we'll boycot it but theirs so many ppl that will still buy these silly features & bs just look at the state of console gaming these days the same will happen on the computer
Blizz sold their soul to the devil & now it belongs to him & so does all our money, if we want to play some decent maps 9/10. Cus they will give the mapmakers a littlebit of money & who doesn't need money? i know i do.. so all the good maps will become "premium" & all the poor sobs can play the "sucky" maps without paying for them
and in the end the people who refuse to pay get screwed cus we can't get the "full" game experiance as paying players do
Thankyou for this write-up. A real eye-opener. And I was curious as to why Modern Warfare 2 was still at $90 even though it's 6 months old. It explains a lot of the gaming community decisions which their games have made: MW2 'stimulus map pack', WoW's ever-growing fees, SC2's direction.
Great post. I really hate to see what Blizzard has become. Sc2 hasn't appealed to me at all since the very first screen shot and this is just the last straw. I will definitely not be buying Starcraft 2, and that's coming from someone who has bought probably 7 copies of Broodwar over the years and an ardent supporter of Blizzard since Warcraft 1. Hopefully I'll be able to pirate a cracked version of the campaign as that's all I care about playing at all. If not I'll just have to do without it.
The greatest problem I have with Blizzard is how they cannot keep my account from getting hacked. Just recently got an email that my WoW account (cancelled subscription last year) was suspected of illegal activities and thus closed.
With them now merging the accounts into one BattleNet account, all the risk is compounded. All a hacker needs to do is hack one account instead of several for each game... And their security is still crap.
Concerning new maps for sale, I can live with what is out there allready. If I master all those maps, I will then think if I really need a new one.
Frankly, there is a reason why Lost Temple was so often used in BW. I don't really need that many maps unless we are doing some random comp stomping with friends.
On May 31 2010 18:09 cHaNg-sTa wrote: Playing SC:BW with 2 other friends - $20
Playing SC2 with 2 other friends after all expansions are out - up to $540
For everything else, Activision is there to take your money.
It gets even sillier when you already have a US account and your two friends are in Europe and Asia, with their own accounts in Europe and Asia... Just add $360 to that price.
Wow that was a hell of a read! Very well done to the OP in a very well structured and sourced post.
A few years a go EA was seen as being the big "evil" in the gaming industry and from reading this I would gladly stand behind the "Kotick is the big evil" now.
I think the precedent has been laid with all that has been done to WoW in terms of additional overpriced options but as we know the player base will chew it up anyway. So I don't know if there is any way to stop the train or just hold on and hope it doesn't crash and kill you.
I doubt you will find anybody who doesn't think that the Activision side of ActiBlizz is horribly mismanaged. They used to have series like Call of Duty (that was still going strong with the early parts from IW), Quake, Wolfenstein, Mechwarrior, Jedi Knight, Vampire the Masquerade... Now they are left with the maker of the crappy parts of CoD, a bunch of movie license games and the less innovative band game studio. Meanwhile Blizzard was single-handedly making Vivendi Games profitable despite the rest of the company failing to sell anything. I don't think they want to influence Blizzard's development that heavily.
The main problem with this type of market is that gamers just have no will and the companies know it!
basicaly what I want to say is.... take a look at modern warfare 2. It had a petition where over 200,000 signee stated that they wouldn't even look at the game anymore since they wouldn't implement "dedicated server support".
Well... I'm pretty sure that if we took every signature and confronted the gamer to know if they bought the game.... we'd get what?... 10% success rate.
Same thing for SC2. Now everyone is a bit pissed at either BNET2.0 or the game itself but in the end... i'm pretty sure that everyone will buy it EVEN if they CLEARLY STATE that they won't right now!
On May 31 2010 18:09 cHaNg-sTa wrote: Playing SC:BW with 2 other friends - $20
Playing SC2 with 2 other friends after all expansions are out - up to $540
For everything else, Activision is there to take your money.
A few points come to mind:
(1): I assume you know that the price for Starcraft + BW for most of its existence, and most definitely when it came out, was significantly higher than the $20 Battlechest. Blizzard today gives you these games almost for free, comparatively.
A little snooping around gets me to the BW FAQ on the Battle.net Compendium website, where the "retailers's suggested price" is given as 30 dollars. Adjusted for inflation from when it came out, that's about $38 dollars. I assume the original Starcraft cost significantly more money than the expansion, as is natural for a game as opposed to an expansion pack. When adjusted for inflation, it probably cost somewhere around the amount of SC2, through probably a bit less, considering its dev time was a lot smaller and it has less content. (If there's someone who remembers the release and the price then, I'd be very happy to hear it...)
So the actual comparison is much different from the one you're trying to make out.
If anything, the reason you can play BW for so little now is that Blizzard very recently has allowed you to do so by putting out the Battlechest, lowering the prices, allowing you to play the game without a CD, etc. Hardly a mark of greed, no?
Oh, and you're assuming that the SC2 expansions will cost exactly the same as the core game, an assumption that is totally unfounded and opposed by all of the facts we actually know at this point.
This is the best example you have. I could say that Blizzard made this decision because they thought it was for the best for the community and the game, but if you've already decided that they're greedy bastards, there's no reason you'd believe them anyway...
Sorry to cherry-pick from your post, and you already somewhat conceeded the above point, but I am genuinely curious how an argument can be made that the nixing of LAN support is for the best of the community and the game. With, of course, proper consideration being given for how it significantly degrades the end user experience.
Even my inner devil's advocate can't come up with anything that is more than just smoke.
I appreciate your effort to try to paint Blizzard in a better light based on their past performance but I find that most of your long post, especially the middle/end makes quite the subtle assumptions to make each of your points.
A lot of it also focuses on the single player campaign and quality and whatever else. Maybe that suggests that the development team is still interested in delivering a quality product and so forth. I'll let you have that point even though I'm thinking "there's just no way to whore a single player campaign for money"... unless you make 2 expansions.
As you know, many of the concerns of the community are about multiplayer and money whoring. Your argument being "look at how the actual game has developed, doesn't that tell you that Blizzard cares about quality still?"
My argument to this is simply that SC2 is a copy of SC1. There's not much you can tell me about "6 years in development" that is going to make me feel like 4 of those were justified. When I think of Blizzard, I think of what D2 did for D1. What SC did for RTS in general and what WC3 did for WC2. Being the most recent example, let's consider WC2. That game had 2 races that had the exact same units on both sides with different skins (orcs or humans). WC3 not only introduced 4 distinct playable races, but they added a brand new hero system that really innovated the old playstyle of WC2/SC. Compare this to SC1 -> SC2 and you realize that you got a new coat of paint and some new units were replaced or rehashed (hellion = fire bat vulture, medivac = medic + dropship, thor = goliath + viagra, mothership = arbiter + viagra, etc).
So when I consider your opinion on the matter I don't see how you can reach the conclusions you reach. The campaign may be fun and great and that will be a wonderful 20-30 hours. We don't know yet, we haven't seen it. What we have seen is what is in multiplayer melee and how bnet and its features are being implemented today. I would argue that multiplayer melee has BARELY innovated on SC1 and that bnet is a piece of shit. Considering most people are going to play custom games, I don't see how anything they've implemented has the player's best interest in mind.
And besides, "the suits" in your arguments didn't show up until July 2008.
So yes, we all loved Blizzard and their games were leetsauce for a bunch of reasons. But SC2 isn't changing things up and bnet is a piece of shit. That is the product of your "6 years in development, quality etc" argument.
Things might change and I suggest that people pick up the game when things change. Until then, if you don't want the future of PC gaming to resemble Xbox live then I suggest you make a stand with your wallet.
On May 31 2010 18:09 cHaNg-sTa wrote: Playing SC:BW with 2 other friends - $20
Playing SC2 with 2 other friends after all expansions are out - up to $540
For everything else, Activision is there to take your money.
A few points come to mind:
(1): I assume you know that the price for Starcraft + BW for most of its existence, and most definitely when it came out, was significantly higher than the $20 Battlechest. Blizzard today gives you these games almost for free, comparatively.
A little snooping around gets me to the BW FAQ on the Battle.net Compendium website, where the "retailers's suggested price" is given as 30 dollars. Adjusted for inflation from when it came out, that's about $38 dollars. I assume the original Starcraft cost significantly more money than the expansion, as is natural for a game as opposed to an expansion pack. When adjusted for inflation, it probably cost somewhere around the amount of SC2, through probably a bit less, considering its dev time was a lot smaller and it has less content. (If there's someone who remembers the release and the price then, I'd be very happy to hear it...)
So the actual comparison is much different from the one you're trying to make out.
If anything, the reason you can play BW for so little now is that Blizzard very recently has allowed you to do so by putting out the Battlechest, lowering the prices, allowing you to play the game without a CD, etc. Hardly a mark of greed, no?
Oh, and you're assuming that the SC2 expansions will cost exactly the same as the core game, an assumption that is totally unfounded and opposed by all of the facts we actually know at this point.
So yeah.
I understand what you're saying, but that's not the point of my post...
I was just saying how if I wanted to play with my friends down the road after all the SC2 expansions are out, we can either go out and buy SC:BW and play together (about $20 nowadays for the battlechest) or.. buy all the expansions to SC2 seperately for "up to $540". I also never assumed that the expansions would cost exactly the same as the core game hence the "up to" part. I don't think it would be completely out of the realm of possibility either though considering even though it's
1. a PC game that normally cost at the very most $50 now cost $60. 2. a PC game that already has 2 expansions announced years before the core game even released
Who says it would be completely ignorant to guess that there's a chance that Blizzard/Activision would argue that even though these are 2 expansions, they are full-bred giant new campaigns to the other 2 races. They may even add "new features" to bnet 2.0 to justify the high price that they could have easily inserted into the original core game.
Look at WoW. I don't know how much the original WoW retailed for ($50?), but I'm looking at the suggested retail prices right now for Cataclysm and it's anywhere from $40-$50. That's BARELY a price differential. It's not a bad assumption to think that the SC2 expansions will cost at least $50 up to $60.
No one is saying that Blizzard was greedy when SC:BW was out. That's why we all loved it. The game was great, the price was very low despite the wonderful Bnet system doing tons of great service over the years. But this is now also a different time. Blizzard's idea of a great game/reasonable price has changed now to what their games are today.
This post basically made me stop playing blizzard games.
I'm going to support the next awesome indie game company until this happens to it and then I'll move on again. The public can have WoW and all the rest of it.
On June 01 2010 02:25 Vexx wrote: My argument to this is simply that SC2 is a copy of SC1. There's not much you can tell me about "6 years in development" that is going to make me feel like 4 of those were justified. When I think of Blizzard, I think of what D2 did for D1. What SC did for RTS in general and what WC3 did for WC2. Being the most recent example, let's consider WC2. That game had 2 races that had the exact same units on both sides with different skins (orcs or humans). WC3 not only introduced 4 distinct playable races, but they added a brand new hero system that really innovated the old playstyle of WC2/SC. Compare this to SC1 -> SC2 and you realize that you got a new coat of paint and some new units were replaced or rehashed (hellion = fire bat vulture, medivac = medic + dropship, thor = goliath + viagra, mothership = arbiter + viagra, etc).
It's pretty clear that most of SC2's development time was spent on the engine, the single-player, and Bnet. The SC2 multiplayer has been in fully playable condition for years before beta even started. We've seen that with our own eyes due to all the constant press events, conventions, and interviews. So I definitely feel that the single-player has been taking up a lot of Blizzard's development time, and I also feel that it's ridiculous to act like Blizzard hasn't been putting effort into the game. Just a mere cursory glance at the cinematics shows a lot about how much time is being put into that campaign. After seeing all the single-player content that's going into SC2, I find it insane that people still go on about the trilogy being a rip-off.
And as for SC2's multiplayer, keep in mind that the whole reason why SC2 is similar to SC1 is because that's what the players specifically wanted. You can't just accuse Blizzard of not listening to the community, then get mad when they do just that. Hell, when you look at all the SC2 gameplay complaints right now, pretty much all of them can be summed up as "it's too different from SC1". Examples: no moving shot micro like in SC1, pathing not like SC1, magic box not like SC1, counter system not like SC1, high ground not like SC1, and so on. It just seems to me like "lack of innovation" is basically an empty complaint. People always bring it up as a black mark against other games, but it never actually stops them from buying it, enjoying it, and praising it as a good game. Just look at Nintendo, who suffers daily complaints about rehashing, but their rehashes are still seen as the best games in the industry.
A lot of the complaints regarding SC2 in this thread seem pretty arbitrary to me. The only thing that deserves hate and criticism is Bnet 0.2. Battle.net has always been the major thing holding SC2 back, and it's that part of the game that should get our utmost focus. I just find it bad that people are starting to get distracted by once again complaining about issues (trilogy, innovation, Activision) that should have been put to rest a long time ago.
On June 01 2010 02:25 Vexx wrote: My argument to this is simply that SC2 is a copy of SC1. There's not much you can tell me about "6 years in development" that is going to make me feel like 4 of those were justified. When I think of Blizzard, I think of what D2 did for D1. What SC did for RTS in general and what WC3 did for WC2. Being the most recent example, let's consider WC2. That game had 2 races that had the exact same units on both sides with different skins (orcs or humans). WC3 not only introduced 4 distinct playable races, but they added a brand new hero system that really innovated the old playstyle of WC2/SC. Compare this to SC1 -> SC2 and you realize that you got a new coat of paint and some new units were replaced or rehashed (hellion = fire bat vulture, medivac = medic + dropship, thor = goliath + viagra, mothership = arbiter + viagra, etc).
It's pretty clear that most of SC2's development time was spent on the engine, the single-player, and Bnet. The SC2 multiplayer has been in fully playable condition for years before beta even started. We've seen that with our own eyes due to all the constant press events, conventions, and interviews. So I definitely feel that the single-player has been taking up a lot of Blizzard's development time, and I also feel that it's ridiculous to act like Blizzard hasn't been putting effort into the game. Just a mere cursory glance at the cinematics shows a lot about how much time is being put into that campaign. After seeing all the single-player content that's going into SC2, I find it insane that people still go on about the trilogy being a rip-off.
And as for SC2's multiplayer, keep in mind that the whole reason why SC2 is similar to SC1 is because that's what the players specifically wanted. You can't just accuse Blizzard of not listening to the community, then get mad when they do just that. Hell, when you look at all the SC2 gameplay complaints right now, pretty much all of them can be summed up as "it's too different from SC1". Examples: no moving shot micro like in SC1, pathing not like SC1, magic box not like SC1, counter system not like SC1, high ground not like SC1, and so on. It just seems to me like "lack of innovation" is basically an empty complaint. People always bring it up as a black mark against other games, but it never actually stops them from buying it, enjoying it, and praising it as a good game. Just look at Nintendo, who suffers daily complaints about rehashing, but their rehashes are still seen as the best games in the industry.
A lot of the complaints regarding SC2 in this thread seem pretty arbitrary to me. The only thing that deserves hate and criticism is Bnet 0.2. Battle.net has always been the major thing holding SC2 back, and it's that part of the game that should get our utmost focus. I just find it bad that people are starting to get distracted by once again complaining about issues (trilogy, innovation, Activision) that should have been put to rest a long time ago.
tbh i rather have 1 part game/campaign and good multiplayer... You will get fun out of campaign for about 1-2 weeks, but multiplayer, as we can see in sc:bw, can grant you entertainment for years.
I'm not entirely sold on SC2, just because of the gamemechanics, but B.Net2.0 and all this Activision-BS is just beyond acceptable.
I mean:
- What if they want us to pay for new shitty Mappacks or even Fan-made Maps/Mods? It's easily possible, because they control everything in B.Net.2.0, even the user-made content! They can start making us pay for playing on Maps or Mods the fans made themselves! - What if Activision suddenly wants ppl to pay to play or pay for every little thing? Again, it's entirely possible, because you always have to be connected to B.Net.2.0. - What if they start making questionable decisions like the one with GomTV and KeSpa - one wrong move by some CEO and they could cut off a huge part of competetive gaming. - What if a fan makes a nice Pro-Mod or sth, that would make proper Micro possible, but Blizzard doesn't allow us to play it, for whatever reason? Same could happen to other Mods - if they don't like it, they can easily just shut it down.
And why do they do all this stuff? Not because of the dubious reasons they present us, but just because of the $$$: - They want to destroy piracy (which is a good thing, but not at the cost of the ppl PAYING!) - They want full control over every aspect of the game, like Mods, Maps, eSports (you need permission to make a tournament or to broadcast etc.) - They want the possibility to implement LOTS of Microtransactions to cash in on every little thing there is. We probably will have to pay for additional Maps, additional B.Net.2.0-features, the Addons and maybe even fan-made content. And this is surely Activision thats behind this stuff - THEY ARE EVIL!
On June 01 2010 02:34 mint_julep wrote: I'm going to support the next awesome indie game company until this happens to it and then I'll move on again. The public can have WoW and all the rest of it.
lol. This is kind of funny. If I've heard of it, it's already to mainstream for you huh?
and some more mainstream but still indie at heart:
CD projekt Red (They redid their entire game, VA and like 5 new modules included, and gave it to customers for free because they felt their original wasn't good enough, despite being the best RPG I've played :o+They're polish, and poles are awesome) http://www.thewitcher.com/
Arena.net(Guys from blizzard go to make competitve MMO with no monthly fee :D+Most amazing art direction I've seen since Myst.) http://www.arena.net/
I suppose everyone here feels that Battle.net 2.0 has taken several steps backwards. However, I'm still going to buy and play SC2. Maybe it won't be as hard of an addiction as D2 or Brood war, but there is a good reason why those games had such levels of replayability. Blizzard is Fantastic at giving their games continued support and more updates. I can say that I enjoy SC2, but am unhappy with many things in the Beta, but I have faith that Blizzard, of all companies, knows how to support their fanbase, and that a shallow walking dick like Kotic (he's a CEO, that's his job description, get over it) isn't going to be able to force too much BS down Blizzards throats before they clamp up. I don't think SC2 will be Competitively ready on its release, but I have faith that Blizzard will only improve it in the years to come. Vanilla SC 1.0 was actually not very good. Diablo 2 got a massive facelift long after the expansion came out, with patch 1.10 Completely redesigining the skill mechanic. Not only do they have a history of continued polishing of games, but they already have SC2 slated for their main focus for a while, with 2 expansions being a major part of their future plans.
That being said, SC2 has taken many many steps backwards, the reasoning of which is so absolutely ludricrous that it really makes you wonder wtf Blizzard is thinking. Someone posted that an XboxLive creator is helping make Bnet, but for the record XboxLive is a horrible horrible online playing system. Functionally, it works with not much lag, but you can't do anything to choose any sort of game or do anything about it. I see a lot of similar problems in Bnet currently. Honestly if they ported the original Bnet interface and ran it on the 2.0 networking engine, it would be better (they really should go back and list all the features of it, and see how much they're leaving out of the new one)
For one, the inability to mute someone if they aren't on your buddy list. That actually might be the reason why I would want to mute them. Apparently SPAM is the reason they don't have chat rooms. I remember making chat channels for my friends and I so that we could AVOID the Spam. Also, I am baffled at current lack of support for Tournaments (the HDH invitiational had to be organized through freaking Email and random people constantly would jump in the games waiting for the tourney participants). Maybe they wanted to hold off in beta, but if they expect SC2 to be a big competitive game, then Bnet needs to let you contact people/leave messages, and actually be able to HOST A FREAKING TOURNAMENT. Where is the LAN? WHERE IS IT? There is NO REASON NOT TO HAVE LAN. Even Blizzard has said that they are not at all concerned with piracy and that piracy is not the reason they aren't including LAN support.
Seriously does anyone remember Vanilla Starcraft with its absolutely revolutionary SPAWN feature? Anyone at all? This is one of the greatest ideas ever (maybe not as profitable as Activision might like, but it got people HOOKED on Starcraft who still play 12 years later). For those of you younger players not as familiar, after purchasing Starcraft and installing it on your computer, you could then spawn your copy to friend's computers. Spawning allowed you to install the Starcraft game on anyone's computer using your game disc, up to 8 times. Those spawn copies could not play singleplayer, but they COULD ONLY play Battle.net games Created by the Original disk owner (Not sure if spawns could play LAN, I think so. think it still had to be the spawner creating it though). This actually encouraged us to show off to our friends how the game was not Warcraft in Space, play with them over internet (this was new and awesome then) and convince them to buy this game so they could join any friend whenever instead of just being able to play with the Spawner.
Now the company that encouraged us to spread their game out and get a huge fanbase is making us buy extra accounts for different regions (SC let you choose US East, US West, Europe and Asia), making communication on Bnet ridiculously bare with horrible controls (again, I have to friend them to mute them? really blizzard?), possibly charging extra for tournaments (probably, if it ever actually gets in the game, probably after beta, and they have mentioned extra fees. no more LAN tourneys of my friends anymore to see who is best), and completely ignoring LAN support.
Given my previous Blizzard whoring and reverence for their impeccable game (and game maintenence) record, my idealist side has hope for SC2, both before release and long after, but my realist side is constantly having it's expectations lowered.
Edit: Paragraphs are my friends, but not when the Teamliqiud box doesn't recognize me entering them. Fixed now, sorry.
On May 31 2010 01:34 UnderWorld_Dream wrote: Huge work into this, and very interesting.
I hate money whores and i don't want my favorite game to be a product for the $profit of someone. But let's face it, the goal of any compagny is to make benifits and the more they do, the more they will try to do.
For those saying: 'im not buying sc2 anymore': Well, are you really gonna sacrifice all the fun and entertainement you could have with this game because of that guy? You dont wanna lend your money to them? Well thats also a greedy comment IMO I mean, not being willing to buy a game because the owners are looking for profit is kinda greedy in itself, isnt it ?
Just leave the money-minded people focused on their profits. I will be focusing on playing the game because that is what I like.
They can have all the money they want i just don't care. I will have more fun than them in life then. Com on guys don't let this ruin your game.
EDIT Hey this is a Starcraft progaming forum. Do not discourage people from buying the game in here, what the hell?
This post just made me rage.
I'm greedy for not wanting to pay a significant amount of money (at least $150 for all 3 campaigns + more if I want cross realm play) for an unfinished game that developers have not even been showing signs of listening to what the people want?
Oh and this is a STARCRAFT programing forum (for now) not a STARCRAFT 2 progaming forum, as it kind of doesn't exist.
Yay for Blizzard run e-sports I guess
I'm only saying that being so concerned by the cost of the game is somehow greedy. But it's my opinon you can disagree i'm totally fine with it.
It's a matter of how much you love something and how much you are willing to pay for it. Some people would not pay 5$ for sc2 while i would pay 200$ and woulndt care. (of course i would find it expensive but i'd just drink less beer??)
Sadly this world is ran by profits and whatever you could do, it won't change.
WTF, just WTF. Dude... Im speechless. How is this greed, obviously u have no idea what greed is. Its like if Ferrari and some cheap, crappy but good looking chinese car would cost the same. Would you really spend your money on that peace of junk instead of ferrari? Starcraft 2 feels loose, not finished and just massed up to get fast money type game. All they do is talk, talk, talk, promote, talk, talk, hype people with all their events, talk and once again talk. They dont actually do anything.
They don't do anything? Sc2 is some kind of cheap game made for profits??
Well, you are truly mistaken. Altho I believe there is some flaws atm with bnet2.0. This game is gonna be huge and I have 100% faith Blizzard wont let us down since they never did in the past.
I'm playing beta since the launch and im really hooked to it, It's an awesome game and I really don't give a ** if they are making plenty of money out of it.
You know what will happen? People will hack the game and play an illegal version of it claiming: 'Im not paying a cent to those greedy bastards'. They will turn around and call their friends: 'man sc2 is so fun, you should dl the torrent!'
On June 01 2010 03:08 zero hoki wrote: I've never been so tempted to pirate a video game before.
They have said that as a reason to implement these kinds of restraints, as have other companies...
Pirating a game might be a "Oh I'll show you," but it is pretty... um... that one word what is it? Illegal? I think that's it... yeah. Pirating a game is immature. It's like protesting a company, but because you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT LIVE WITHOUT IT, you just steal it. Sure your hurting their profits/revenue... but really... if you can't contain yourself to say that what they are doing is wrong, so I won't even try to enjoy the game while it's out (aka, don't pirate) your not only taking the high road but your having an effect. Consider this, if northerners in the U.S. civil war were keeping slaves while fighting the South, it doesn't really look like a campaign against slavery... it just looks like an immature country who is preventing part of their own country from certain rights (An Apartheid).
On June 01 2010 03:08 zero hoki wrote: I've never been so tempted to pirate a video game before.
They have said that as a reason to implement these kinds of restraints, as have other companies...
Pirating a game might be a "Oh I'll show you," but it is pretty... um... that one word what is it? Illegal? I think that's it... yeah. Pirating a game is immature. It's like protesting a company, but because you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT LIVE WITHOUT IT, you just steal it. Sure your hurting their profits/revenue... but really... if you can't contain yourself to say that what they are doing is wrong, so I won't even try to enjoy the game while it's out (aka, don't pirate) your not only taking the high road but your having an effect. Consider this, if northerners in the U.S. civil war were keeping slaves while fighting the South, it doesn't really look like a campaign against slavery... it just looks like an immature country who is preventing part of their own country from certain rights (An Apartheid).
I guess noone here really thinks piracy is a good thing, but what Blizzard/Activision does is trying to destroy piracy at the expense of the ppl paying for the game.
It's one thing to offer ppl awesome features when you play it online, so you'd want to buy it and play it online, but it's another story when you force ppl into playing it online, implement a bunch of features nobody wants and lot's of ways for the company to cash in on the user and give the fans some bogus explanations how B.Net.2.0. is actually better for the ppl paying for the game.
Bottom line: The User that is paying for SC2 will probably get F'd over much more than the ones that will find a way to crack SC2 and play it on illegal servers, were they will have the ability to play over LAN and where they won't have to pay for certain features and all that annoying stuff that Activision/Blizzard has in store for the ppl actually supporting their product... -.-°
It's just an overall stupid approach and IMHO it's unbelievable how Activision gets away with stuff like that.
If you look at it that way, Piracy is the logic consequense of companies screwing over the potential customers and they have to find a way to make us want to pay for their games, because what Activision and other major companies are doing now, is just total BS.
On June 01 2010 02:34 mint_julep wrote: I'm going to support the next awesome indie game company until this happens to it and then I'll move on again. The public can have WoW and all the rest of it.
lol. This is kind of funny. If I've heard of it, it's already to mainstream for you huh?
and some more mainstream but still indie at heart:
CD projekt Red (They redid their entire game, VA and like 5 new modules included, and gave it to customers for free because they felt their original wasn't good enough, despite being the best RPG I've played :o+They're polish, and poles are awesome) http://www.thewitcher.com/
Arena.net(Guys from blizzard go to make competitve MMO with no monthly fee :D+Most amazing art direction I've seen since Myst.) http://www.arena.net/
Hope those are edgy enuff for ya...
My interest in indie games is based on a the desire to support those who are passionately creating good products for the benefit of the community as opposed to for dollars, not to be cool.
Try to be less condescending and presumptuous in the future and maybe you'll sound like less of an asshole than you thought I did.
I honestly think a person like that is threatening something which was creative, pure.
There is always a money issue, and it's right that the company should get money and prosper, but for what? That money should go into development not into royalties payed to stockholders, it's the worst way to go.
He apparently doesn't care about creative side very much and is so centered on raising more money, basically milking a goat even if it dies in a process.
Seriously scary, very fucking scary since I really want to play SC2 and D3.
I think he has to die. black humour jk
P.S. He sounds as ridiculous and egocentrical as Bush and that part with "exterminating" and "fairly" is one of the pearls.
On June 01 2010 03:08 zero hoki wrote: I've never been so tempted to pirate a video game before.
They have said that as a reason to implement these kinds of restraints, as have other companies...
Pirating a game might be a "Oh I'll show you," but it is pretty... um... that one word what is it? Illegal? I think that's it... yeah. Pirating a game is immature. It's like protesting a company, but because you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT LIVE WITHOUT IT, you just steal it. Sure your hurting their profits/revenue... but really... if you can't contain yourself to say that what they are doing is wrong, so I won't even try to enjoy the game while it's out (aka, don't pirate) your not only taking the high road but your having an effect. Consider this, if northerners in the U.S. civil war were keeping slaves while fighting the South, it doesn't really look like a campaign against slavery... it just looks like an immature country who is preventing part of their own country from certain rights (An Apartheid).
Same applies to games. Heck there are even games out there with such crappy DRM that customers that bought the game legally were unable to play the game! How stupid is that?
Seriously, the whole DRM / zomg pirated games wouldve been sold games is just bullocks. Tons of games get pirated, sure, but dont think that if people werent able to pirate it, they would buy the game. The last years, tons of lame games came out, lacking tons of features.. often that were promised before, direct ports from consoles, games coming out with tons of bugs, crappy storylines, etcetera. So people want to see whether it is worth their money. If its any good and multiplayer adds so much more to the game (which is the case for SC2) people will buy it anyways. Also, it isnt like every pirated version implies that the person didnt buy the game itself as well.
The downfall of PC games isnt due to piracy, its due to crappy sucky games that were being rushed by companies that expect that lame games with full of bugs is going to sell and blame it on other parties. So many games wouldve been so much better if they had tiny small changes, bugfixes, etcetera.
Blizzard needs to realize that the same fan passion that generates websites like TL, tourneys, and giant community... is the same passion that's going to 1 star their game and get major online blogs going against them.
Passionate fans are definitely a double sided sword... they only see us as dolla dolla bills though.
I played wow for about 3 years and I never paid for a single thing outside of the subscription fee, but I know tons of people in game who bought that extra crap. They bought the pets, the changed their name, they moved realms, they did all of that stupid crap because they thought it was cheap and worth it and now they are bringing it to the starcraft franchise because it works. Just like in wow, they totally ditched the hardcore player, but gave them a little milk to suck on (the lich king) they made the game extremely accessible to the average player. So this brings us to their goal. Make the game good enough for hardcore players to buy it to keep the community alive, then rake in profits from casuals who will buy anything you put in front of them.
The difference between wow and starcraft though is fundamental and activisions strategy for profiting will have to change once they realize people aren't going to buy crap like maps or pay for tournaments, etc. Why won't this happen on starcraft? because starcraft is a elite game. If people suck at a game, they stop playing it. This is why wow is so popular, because its almost impossible to suck. So activision (i will not refer to blizzard here, because blizzard wouldn't do this crap on their own) has introduced things like ladders to make newbies feel better about themselves. Even the change to remove copper and make bronze the lowest was a psychological change so that the lowest level players think, "oh bronze, i'm 3rd place". Also this means inflated groups. In a pyramid ladder system, players would take months to go up to a new league. With the even system, a bronze can get to silver in a few weeks with practice and silver to gold in another few weeks giving them 1. an incentive to play 2. the illusion of possibly becoming a great player. What eventually will happen is the player will get stuck at gold and then get frustrated and quit. However, in that time they will have bought maps, tshirts, blizzard authenticators, and spent another $50 on a game that they otherwise would have quit within the first week. This means two things,
1. more player involvment and longer lifespan for casuals, which is a good thing. It means more people watching tournaments and the growth of esports in general. I never played rts games other than aoe and I'm already hooked on watching sc2 games and I can tell you, the illusion that I am a good player (by being in plat) has made me want to play more.
2. The end of elite gaming and the introduction of full time casual gaming. In other sports, there are millions of players. For example, in baseball, there is the MLB, AAA ball, college, high school, little league, even t-ball. 1 in 10,000 players in high school will play a sport professionally or 0.01%. But for that 1 player, there are 9,999 fans. If baseball was only playable by elitists maybe such as rowing, then the draw to bring in casuals is almost nil. So activisions goal is to make people addicted to their sport and drawn in to watching pro games by making the game accessible to everyone. If the casual can understand what's going on after playing the game for 15 minutes, then they can relate to the pros. Mini-transactions are nothing different than the MLB selling team-hats or only allowing certain companies to broadcast their events.
In the end, baseball players might like to know their true skill (ELO) to compare to other players, but casuals don't care. Casuals don't like numbers. I think a comprimise might be to do the asian GO ranking system. newbies are between 30-20 kyu, casuals between 20-10 kyu, intermediates between 9-1 kyu, advanced between 1-7 dan and pro between 1-9 pro-dan. In a way, that's exactly what the rating system is, except you are grouped with people from a wide range rather than just your most immediate rank. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_ranks_and_ratings for details)
This is happening and there is no way to stop it. There are a few things we as players can do.
1. Don't buy the game, which sucks because the game itself is awesome. 2. Buy the game but then complain about all the newbies ruining the game (just like what they said about golf when it was no longer just a gentleman's sport) 3. Buy the game, make encouraging videos for newbies (like day9), make pro gaming a big deal to attract people, and don't discourage newbies. Imagine if you were playing chess for the first time and your opponent was an advanced player and when he crushed you he laughed at you and told you that you sucked hard and that it was people like you that ruin the game.
I know how hard it may be, but for esports to grow, then we must embrace the casual because without fans, the game won't have support. If you hate esports and wish that the only people that played sc2 were gamers who didn't buy stupid crap like player mods, then ignore everything i just said, don't buy sc2, and continue playing wc3
PS I am not justifying what activision is doing, just trying to explain their reasoning and how it could map out in favor for sc2. Things like chat rooms obviously need to be in place and cross server play is important, but as a view for their goals with sc2, I can somewhat understand what they are trying to accomplish (since wow was/is such a success)
[QUOTE]On June 01 2010 04:30 darmousseh wrote: I know how hard it may be, but for esports to grow, then we must embrace the casual because without fans, the game won't have support. If you hate esports and wish that the only people that played sc2 were gamers who didn't buy stupid crap like player mods, then ignore everything i just said, don't buy sc2, and continue playing wc3
Sorry to rain on your parade, but this quote is completely wrong. You can't sit there and tell me that this game is not tailored more towards the casual gamer as opposed to a serious/pro gamer. Basically what your saying is that if its too hard for the "casual gamer" they won't buy it. Lets look at SC1/BW for a moment. Epic campaign, great story, very difficult multiplayer. SC and BW have almost sold 12 million copies worldwide. Difficulty doesn't shoo the casual gamer away, it's a crappy game that does.
On June 01 2010 03:08 zero hoki wrote: I've never been so tempted to pirate a video game before.
They have said that as a reason to implement these kinds of restraints, as have other companies...
Pirating a game might be a "Oh I'll show you," but it is pretty... um... that one word what is it? Illegal? I think that's it... yeah. Pirating a game is immature. It's like protesting a company, but because you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT LIVE WITHOUT IT, you just steal it. Sure your hurting their profits/revenue... but really... if you can't contain yourself to say that what they are doing is wrong, so I won't even try to enjoy the game while it's out (aka, don't pirate) your not only taking the high road but your having an effect. Consider this, if northerners in the U.S. civil war were keeping slaves while fighting the South, it doesn't really look like a campaign against slavery... it just looks like an immature country who is preventing part of their own country from certain rights (An Apartheid).
I guess noone here really thinks piracy is a good thing, but what Blizzard/Activision does is trying to destroy piracy at the expense of the ppl paying for the game.
It's one thing to offer ppl awesome features when you play it online, so you'd want to buy it and play it online, but it's another story when you force ppl into playing it online, implement a bunch of features nobody wants and lot's of ways for the company to cash in on the user and give the fans some bogus explanations how B.Net.2.0. is actually better for the ppl paying for the game.
Bottom line: The User that is paying for SC2 will probably get F'd over much more than the ones that will find a way to crack SC2 and play it on illegal servers, were they will have the ability to play over LAN and where they won't have to pay for certain features and all that annoying stuff that Activision/Blizzard has in store for the ppl actually supporting their product... -.-°
It's just an overall stupid approach and IMHO it's unbelievable how Activision gets away with stuff like that.
If you look at it that way, Piracy is the logic consequense of companies screwing over the potential customers and they have to find a way to make us want to pay for their games, because what Activision and other major companies are doing now, is just total BS.
This just proves it - it was better before. They don't care about starcraft or esports, all they want is money. Lots of it.
Right now I am 50-50 certain of even purchasing starcraft 2. How much will I have to pay after I've actually installed the game? From this I'll take its twice what I originally payed for the disc.
That is such a BS image. It takes me all of 30 seconds to start a movie on DVD. He's bitching about pressing play on the remote? Seriously?
I mean, if we're going to be retarded about it, to watch a pirated movie you have to:
1) Dl. Bit Torrent. 2) Find a torrent. 3) No Seeds. 4) Find a torrent with seeds. 5) Wait for anywhere from one hour to twelve hours to download it. 6) Find out it's actually porn. 7) Find ANOTHER torrent. With seeds. And legit! 8) Watch torrent die halfway into it. 9) Finally find a working, legit, fast torrent, and download the damn file. 10) Find out where Windows hid it. 11) Double click. 12) Switch to full-screen view. 13) Finally watch the movie. On your piddling little 12-inch computer screen, with crappy built-in speakers.
Meanwhile, to watch a bought DVD, you 1) Go to the store. 2) Buy it. 3) Shove DVD in player. 4) Click play. 5) Watch movie.
So much easier. And not illegal. Plus you have your nice big screen TV with full surround sound, and a nice packaging and you have the satisfaction of actually owning a nice looking disk in a nice looking package instead of some piddling little white thing with your sloppy handwriting in permanent ink scrawled on the front.
I mean, seriously. THat image is the most pathetic, whiny thing I've ever seen.
And might I mention, I own a *TON* of DVDs. Our family loves our movies. Number of movies with unskippable previews in our entire collection: 2. Maybe 3. Has the creator of this image never heard of the 'menu' button?
That is such a BS image. It takes me all of 30 seconds to start a movie on DVD. He's bitching about pressing play on the remote? Seriously?
I mean, if we're going to be retarded about it, to watch a pirated movie you have to:
1) Dl. Bit Torrent. 2) Find a torrent. 3) No Seeds. 4) Find a torrent with seeds. 5) Wait for anywhere from one hour to twelve hours to download it. 6) Find out it's actually porn. 7) Find ANOTHER torrent. With seeds. And legit! 8) Watch torrent die halfway into it. 9) Finally find a working, legit, fast torrent, and download the damn file. 10) Find out where Windows hid it. 11) Double click. 12) Switch to full-screen view. 13) Finally watch the movie. On your piddling little 12-inch computer screen, with crappy built-in speakers.
Meanwhile, to watch a bought DVD, you 1) Go to the store. 2) Buy it. 3) Shove DVD in player. 4) Click play. 5) Watch movie.
So much easier. And not illegal. Plus you have your nice big screen TV with full surround sound, and a nice packaging and you have the satisfaction of actually owning a nice looking disk in a nice looking package instead of some piddling little white thing with your sloppy handwriting in permanent ink scrawled on the front.
I mean, seriously. THat image is the most pathetic, whiny thing I've ever seen.
And might I mention, I own a *TON* of DVDs. Our family loves our movies. Number of movies with unskippable previews in our entire collection: 2. Maybe 3. Has the creator of this image never heard of the 'menu' button?
There are HD streams now, press enter, watch movie like the picture.
[QUOTE]On June 01 2010 00:21 Captain Peabody wrote: [quote]A little snooping around gets me to the BW FAQ on the Battle.net Compendium website, where the "retailers's suggested price" is given as 30 dollars. Adjusted for inflation from when it came out, that's about $38 dollars.[/QUOTE]
The BW expansion was originally $20 on its own. I forget what SC was... probably $40-50.
That is such a BS image. It takes me all of 30 seconds to start a movie on DVD. He's bitching about pressing play on the remote? Seriously?
I mean, if we're going to be retarded about it, to watch a pirated movie you have to:
1) Dl. Bit Torrent. 2) Find a torrent. 3) No Seeds. 4) Find a torrent with seeds. 5) Wait for anywhere from one hour to twelve hours to download it. 6) Find out it's actually porn. 7) Find ANOTHER torrent. With seeds. And legit! 8) Watch torrent die halfway into it. 9) Finally find a working, legit, fast torrent, and download the damn file. 10) Find out where Windows hid it. 11) Double click. 12) Switch to full-screen view. 13) Finally watch the movie. On your piddling little 12-inch computer screen, with crappy built-in speakers.
Meanwhile, to watch a bought DVD, you 1) Go to the store. 2) Buy it. 3) Shove DVD in player. 4) Click play. 5) Watch movie.
So much easier. And not illegal. Plus you have your nice big screen TV with full surround sound, and a nice packaging and you have the satisfaction of actually owning a nice looking disk in a nice looking package instead of some piddling little white thing with your sloppy handwriting in permanent ink scrawled on the front.
I mean, seriously. THat image is the most pathetic, whiny thing I've ever seen.
And might I mention, I own a *TON* of DVDs. Our family loves our movies. Number of movies with unskippable previews in our entire collection: 2. Maybe 3. Has the creator of this image never heard of the 'menu' button?
You obviously don't get it.
What ppl are trying to say here is, that it's up to the Producers/Big Studios to make ppl WANT to buy their stuff.
The whole piracy-thing is just something totally new that came with the digital-era and Companies obviously don't know how to deal with it and blame the opportunistic huge amorphic Mass of potential Consumers for not buying, but pirating their Movies/Games.
What happened before Internet-Piracy with Stuff ppl didn't want to spend money on - they didn't buy it. It's as simple as that. Now, ppl have the opportunity to watch movies/play games without buying it, so you can play a game that you wouldn't want to spend money on. Either big companies can be stupid and unrealistic and begin to blame everyone than themself, or they begin to think about what to do to make ppl WANT to buy their games.
Blizzard always had good ways of making ppl wanting to buy their games, with extremely sufficient online-playability - They've always sold millions of copies and personally, I have so many Blizzard games and it never occured to me to pirate one of them, because I wanted to play them online.
With SC2, it would've been the same thing. Why would I want to pirate a game I'm planning on playing Online for thousands of hours? But now, with all this B.Net.2.0-BS, I'm considering NOT TO BUY SC2.
- WTF went wrong here?
Activision just wants to cash in and obviously doesn't know how ppl want to play SC2 and they think that the problems with stupid single-player-games (TBH, I can totally understand if sm1 doesn't want to pay 50 Dollars for a game he'll play for 10 hours, compared to a game like SC:BW, were you get thousands and thousands hours of fun for the same price when it came out) also apply to Games like SC2 and that is just wrong, they'll loose a lot of fans and potential customers, just because of bad management-decisions by some A-hole that has a God-complex...
That is such a BS image. It takes me all of 30 seconds to start a movie on DVD. He's bitching about pressing play on the remote? Seriously?
I mean, if we're going to be retarded about it, to watch a pirated movie you have to:
1) Dl. Bit Torrent. 2) Find a torrent. 3) No Seeds. 4) Find a torrent with seeds. 5) Wait for anywhere from one hour to twelve hours to download it. 6) Find out it's actually porn. 7) Find ANOTHER torrent. With seeds. And legit! 8) Watch torrent die halfway into it. 9) Finally find a working, legit, fast torrent, and download the damn file. 10) Find out where Windows hid it. 11) Double click. 12) Switch to full-screen view. 13) Finally watch the movie. On your piddling little 12-inch computer screen, with crappy built-in speakers.
Meanwhile, to watch a bought DVD, you 1) Go to the store. 2) Buy it. 3) Shove DVD in player. 4) Click play. 5) Watch movie.
So much easier. And not illegal. Plus you have your nice big screen TV with full surround sound, and a nice packaging and you have the satisfaction of actually owning a nice looking disk in a nice looking package instead of some piddling little white thing with your sloppy handwriting in permanent ink scrawled on the front.
I mean, seriously. THat image is the most pathetic, whiny thing I've ever seen.
And might I mention, I own a *TON* of DVDs. Our family loves our movies. Number of movies with unskippable previews in our entire collection: 2. Maybe 3. Has the creator of this image never heard of the 'menu' button?
It is more like 1) Find rapidshare links on some warez forums 2) Download with some download manager 3) Extract 4) Watch movie
I dont want to say that I am supporting piracy, though I downloaded ton of movies and games. Truth is, if I like the movie, I will go to cinema to see it, and if it was really good, Im gonna buy the DVD too. It is more like a preview for me, so I can see if its worth the money. Im also downloading TV shows like Stargate Universe or Flash Forward, cause it might be year or more till i will be able to see it on TV here in Slovakia, if ever.
Pirating PC games might be slightly different, but if that Activision guy tells, that he would charge more than 60$ for a game... Well it is pretty sick for me, I think higher price means more people will go for pirated version of game. Funny thing is, that this game pirates might have LAN games in the future with cracked battle.net 2.0 server on some local computer...
If Blizzard doesn't put LAN in starcraft 2 and then it shows up in a cracked version, I'll pirate it. But I'll also buy starcraft 2. Just because Starcraft is irreversibly intertwined with Bnet 2.0 as Blizzard is with Activision, the head of which is despicably good at his job, this doesn't mean we should boycott or steal this game. It's sometimes difficult for a fiscal consumer to vote with their dollars (for instance, its hard not to buy grahm crackers because they're owned by Phillip Morris and you don't want to support them), but you can boycott activision games without boycotting blizzard games, even though Kotic might see some stock price rise from it. Face it, it's a great game(s), litttle pricey, but with good future support and outlook (and if all else fails, you'll always have Brood War). Help Blizzard help Starcraft 2. Don't pirate or boycott them.
[QUOTE]On June 01 2010 04:45 cloudJR wrote: [QUOTE]On June 01 2010 04:30 darmousseh wrote: I know how hard it may be, but for esports to grow, then we must embrace the casual because without fans, the game won't have support. If you hate esports and wish that the only people that played sc2 were gamers who didn't buy stupid crap like player mods, then ignore everything i just said, don't buy sc2, and continue playing wc3
Sorry to rain on your parade, but this quote is completely wrong. You can't sit there and tell me that this game is not tailored more towards the casual gamer as opposed to a serious/pro gamer. Basically what your saying is that if its too hard for the "casual gamer" they won't buy it. Lets look at SC1/BW for a moment. Epic campaign, great story, very difficult multiplayer. SC and BW have almost sold 12 million copies worldwide. Difficulty doesn't shoo the casual gamer away, it's a crappy game that does. [/QUOTE]
sc1/bw sold 12 million copies, if they keep it the same and its very difficult to be good, then it will sell 12 million over the next 12 years, but if they gear it towards casuals then they will sell 40 million copies worldwide. Difficulty is definitely a motivating factor towards playing a game.
On June 01 2010 03:08 zero hoki wrote: I've never been so tempted to pirate a video game before.
They have said that as a reason to implement these kinds of restraints, as have other companies...
Pirating a game might be a "Oh I'll show you," but it is pretty... um... that one word what is it? Illegal? I think that's it... yeah. Pirating a game is immature. It's like protesting a company, but because you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT LIVE WITHOUT IT, you just steal it. Sure your hurting their profits/revenue... but really... if you can't contain yourself to say that what they are doing is wrong, so I won't even try to enjoy the game while it's out (aka, don't pirate) your not only taking the high road but your having an effect. Consider this, if northerners in the U.S. civil war were keeping slaves while fighting the South, it doesn't really look like a campaign against slavery... it just looks like an immature country who is preventing part of their own country from certain rights (An Apartheid).
I guess noone here really thinks piracy is a good thing, but what Blizzard/Activision does is trying to destroy piracy at the expense of the ppl paying for the game.
It's one thing to offer ppl awesome features when you play it online, so you'd want to buy it and play it online, but it's another story when you force ppl into playing it online, implement a bunch of features nobody wants and lot's of ways for the company to cash in on the user and give the fans some bogus explanations how B.Net.2.0. is actually better for the ppl paying for the game.
Bottom line: The User that is paying for SC2 will probably get F'd over much more than the ones that will find a way to crack SC2 and play it on illegal servers, were they will have the ability to play over LAN and where they won't have to pay for certain features and all that annoying stuff that Activision/Blizzard has in store for the ppl actually supporting their product... -.-°
It's just an overall stupid approach and IMHO it's unbelievable how Activision gets away with stuff like that.
If you look at it that way, Piracy is the logic consequense of companies screwing over the potential customers and they have to find a way to make us want to pay for their games, because what Activision and other major companies are doing now, is just total BS.
The problem is what drove this trend. What drove this trend was torrents and the inability of companies to properly file lawsuits since they are more or less hard to trace. The sites that host these torrents often get away with claiming they are hosting only, but even if they didn't host, by just passing it along in IM message sending or whatever, it just isn't a good environment. Yes I totally agree that how they want use to play SC2 is by being online, but to them, it is a small price to pay to prevent 1 copy becoming 20 copies of SC2. And while these attempts may be misguided since apparently their programmers are less capable than the programmers determined to crack games (Game engine being so amazing yet filled with problems on unit control in many people's eyes). However I do totally agree with you that their idea of trying to make even more money by selling "Premium maps and such is really, really stupid. However, my argument is that people need self-control and must be able to say "this is wrong, I won't even illegally enjoy your game cause these are problems." The biggest reason why they can get away with it: because people are not willing to stop themselves from playing the game at all (buying or pirating). If people were willing to say no, they wouldn't be able to push this kind of crap on the players. Though one of the obvious things that Activision also has going for it is that Console games are much more difficult to "have your with" as a pirate. The games are a lot more coherent, the gaming system is the same, so it is easier to detect odd, modded systems, and in general, the console community see's no problem with paying 3 extra installments of $10 each for extra content. And since the console community has no problem with it, these companies can start dropping PC support, whether it be previously free map packs, no more dedicated servers, etc. because they can sacrifice the scary pirate ridden PC market for the relatively safe console market. Finally, as a natural response to this bull shit seems to be... misguided. To say that PC gamers are going to pirate a game because the pirated game doesn't have bull shit in it seems really low, no matter what company is the "loser." Gamers should be able to just boycott a game (and a pure one at that, not pirating the game either), in order to have their voices heard.
Saw this thread on the latest Weapon of Choice; thanks for highlighting this great article, Wheat. And big thanks to OP for writing all this up.
It is really sad what has happened with the bnet and gomTV stuff.. from being somewhat uncertain in purchasing SC2, I went to being very determined in not buying the game.
On May 30 2010 08:17 Sabu113 wrote: Do you really want to bring a racial element into this?
You sound like you're making a threat. Hahaha.
It's amazing how, in the politically correct world you americans live in, if ethnic iranians occupied ALL of your media and video game companies tomorrow, you wouldn't be able to point it out for fear of being labeled a "raciss". If those iranian CEO's also donated to causes that hurt your foreign policy and affected elections in their favor, you wouldn't be able to point it out.
You're wrong, it's not about racial elements at all, it's about the fact that all of these companies are dominated by a group that constitutes less than 2% of the total american population. It's amazing to me how so few americans realize this, and see WHY companies turn into money-making schemes when people of this group start inhabiting the positions of chairman and CEO.
Michael Morhaime belongs to this group. So does the CEO of Activision, and all the big video game companies (EA, Bethesda, etc), except Valve.
User was temp banned for this post.
Heh.. I'm sorry for bringing this old post back, but I have to ask ... what is the significance of Valve in that post?
Fucking disgusting. I cannot believe that my favorite company, Blizzard, is being destroyed by the incorrigible greed of Kotick and Vivendi. The guy is clearly a gigantic douchebag (taking away the fun of making games? keeping an atmosphere of fear), but also clearly knows how to maximize profits, otherwise he wouldn't have the job.
BNet 2.0, a PC service being mirrored like XBox Live finally now makes sense. What a tragedy.
Most enlightening post, good sir! It really gave me something to think about, allthough it is depressing to see, which way Activision is pushing Battle.net 2.0. Its all about the dollars, it seems, less about the community. I for one, will think twice before going into their planned map-market now!
Makes me sick to my stomach it happened to be blizzard they decided to gut, but I guess going for the most recognized name in quality gaming makes sense from a business standpoint. SC2 is probably going to go the way of MW2. Wont expect Sc3 to have any following, or any of its previous developers if the actions from infinity ward indicate anything. Every action possible is being taking to milk every little last dollar out of a non subscription based game, its sickening.
I'm so close to pirating SC2 now mostly thanks to knowing most of the cost of the game and all it extra "value added content" profit is going to line koteks pockets and not go towards development of the next big game, and if it does, its only going to fuel another black money hole developed game with profit and milking as its only goal.
It shall be glorious when people rip the game to shreds and get a full fledged Iccup2.0 going with more free features than bnet will support and blizzard ladders will be left barren.
The reality of piracy is that nobody can stop it. I like blizzard. I can afford SC2 no problem. My being tempted to pirate their game is to PUNISH their stupid decisions. If I did pirate, which I won't, but if I did they could redeem themselves by correcting the mistakes, I would then buy a legit copy and play online.
I've had the misfortune of working with a producer at EA before, and let me tell you these douchbag producers have a god complex and think they're untouchable. Most don't care about the players they just want to come up with a new idea and claim it a success even if they have no measurable proof. The last thing they will ever do is admit they made a mistake, I've seen them blame customers before. But if a decision hurts the wallet even activision will rethink what they're doing.
I was banned too , because of being the main guy in the froums about beta , i have been in numerous threads for balance and bugs , with many constructive ideas that helped the community and one of my ideas actually got into the game (corruptors corrutp ability)
While in this , i was very active as well in the "bnet2.0" department , they said i was "insulting" them.
Activision has clearly taken over blizzard, they are pushing the game which is not finished , people have waited this long , and let me guess , it's not long enough, it will be at least 3 months until the game will work propery alteast with these features that we have now , lan , chatrooms , etc etc is a whole lot different matter , if ever. Patch 12 and 13 have fucked up everything , i got high end pc never had problems now i have BSODs and random freezes with SC2. come on.
i thought i was shocked by this, the Frank Pearce interview and everything ... but what shocked me even more is that people still have such a naiv faith in blizzard ... like sheeps they are complaining all day long about Bnet2.0 and Activisions policy but they will buy ... still give them what they want. People need to realize that SC2 community is something completly different compared to the WoW community. I'd like to consider the SC2 community much more intelligent also. If we the fanbase will unite atleast here at TL and bring all those news out for the casual to understand and notice, bring it to the gaming magazines, publish it in all forums ... hell, WE know how the internet works, we know how Viral Advertisment works ... do you really think it can't be done the other way around? Do you really think Blizzard doesn't care about all the bad PR before the release? Do you really think they are telling us the truth about everything they have planed now? NO, because they don't want bad PR (the no LAN thing was pretty bad for them already) What we need though is a voice and a united fanbase. It CAN be done ... not to pirate the game, not because we hate Blizzard Developers or their games but to make Blizzard listen again. Not some childish, unrational ranting ... a civilized protest, with all the weapons we have at our proposel.
"One hand at work is worth more then billions clasped in prayer."
But of course you could just resign and do nothing, go buy the game ... but then please stop complaining.
Its Activision Blizzard for a reason. And Blizzard itself in my eyes has right to charge even $200 per copy of every game it released. I pay to Blizzard for Blizzard quality, and i don't give a shit what that huge monster coalition whatever behind them. There wasn't any bs in Blizzard buisness till now, even that WOW mount for $25 is understandable. Tho pretty interesting information and impressive amount of work. Thanks!
And they wonder why people actually crack and pirate games. I can gladly say "yes, I DO have a pirated copy of Modern Warcrap 2", something I wouldn't even CONSIDER a couple years ago and the ONLY reason I did it was because of what they did with the online gameplay with that game.
Be certain that this model of service (currently being offered by Actishition) while bound to attract new and unaware customers will definitelly kill the company in the long run, because serious gamers are what made this industry what it is today, not the everyday pacman and tetris casual gamer.
Be certain that this model of service (currently being offered by Actishition) while bound to attract new and unaware customers will definitelly kill the company in the long run, because serious gamers are what made this industry what it is today, not the everyday pacman and tetris casual gamer.
Uh, mate, hate to make trouble, but I'm pretty sure pacman and tetris were about, if not more, influential than starcraft in making the video games industry what it is today. Before you go about trampling some of the finest examples of elegance in design as 'casual', do a little research. Blizzard would totally not be the same company it is today without its own casual element- TDs, HDs, obs madness etc. I really despise this complexity = superiority complex some people have >.>. It's not the impact of Activision on the 'serious' aspect of SC2 that's going to be most damaging, it's their impact on the *casual* aspect.
All good things must come to an end. If this stuff does not turn around people will eventually turn a cold shoulder and move on. Maybe even more Blizzard employees will quit and start more new companies. It's a shame things are moving in this direction. Blizzard always produces top quality and feature rich games. And they are so tainted by Activision it makes me sad. Been a fan since Warcraft I and wait decades for their games without even realizing it due to their longevity and playability. But this is not something I want to endure for long.
I've purchased every single PC game produced by Blizzard except WoW and for the first time I feel hesitant towards purchasing SC2.
Thank you for confirming my personal suspicions towards Blizzard's current decision making with this enlightening post. I hope Blizzard can get out of this merger and hopefully begin to be the Blizzard we all knew and loved. However, with current trends, this seems most unlikely.
Zuckerberg: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard Zuckerberg: Just ask. Zuckerberg: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuckerberg: People just submitted it. Zuckerberg: I don't know why. Zuckerberg: They "trust me" Zuckerberg: Dumb f*cks.
wait can anyone comprehend what is he trying to state?
Zuckerberg: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard Zuckerberg: Just ask. Zuckerberg: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuckerberg: People just submitted it. Zuckerberg: I don't know why. Zuckerberg: They "trust me" Zuckerberg: Dumb f*cks.
wait can anyone comprehend what is he trying to state?
Those were statements from the creator of Facebook. He basically admits that he's willing to give out anybody's information and that his users are "dumb f*cks". Not exactly the kind of message you want to give out to people.
And they wonder why people actually crack and pirate games. I can gladly say "yes, I DO have a pirated copy of Modern Warcrap 2", something I wouldn't even CONSIDER a couple years ago and the ONLY reason I did it was because of what they did with the online gameplay with that game.
If your sense of morality is dependent upon the person or corporation you want to steal from being upright, moral and doing stuff you like, then frankly that's not really morality at all. That is to say, if the only reason you don't steal from someone is that you happen to like them and think they're a great guy, then that's no more morally praiseworthy than someone who doesn't murder solely because he doesn't feel like it.
But, really, I'm sick of pirates trying to take the moral high ground based on perceived injustices by corporations towards what amounts to their own bloated sense of self-entitlement.
Because, you know what? You're not owed anything by Activision, Blizzard, or any other corporation. You're not entitled to "playing a game without paying money for it," as another person in this thread said. A game is not an item that really belongs to you but is being wrongfully withheld from you by evil, greedy corporate masters. No matter how bad a game is, it was created by a company, and it belongs to them, not you; it is their property, the same way a shoe in a shoe store is the shoe store's property, or the corn produced on a farm is the farmer's property. If you want to acquire that product, you must pay the company the amount they set. This is irregardless of how much it's "really worth" or should be worth in your eyes; the company owns the game, and they get to set the price. If it's ridiculously high, no one will buy it; thus, it is in their interests to set a price that people will actually buy; this is called Economics. But nonetheless, the game still belongs to them. It is their "private property," a concept that has been attacked by charlatans the world over, but is still the only reasonable way to run a society.
The thinking behind a lot of this seems to be "Well, if I'm not going to buy this game, I might as well pirate it anyway." That is, the assertion is that the act of pirating the game and simply not buying it are basically equivalent in a moral sense. But this is a mere trick of words, and simply atrocious moral calculus. In both cases, it is true, the company gets no money from you; but in the first case, the product is taken by you without any compensation to its owners, while in the second, you pay no money and so receive no product, as the law dictates. In one, you are given the product by its owner and creator freely; in the other, you wrest it from them by force.
To put it simply, the difference between the two acts of pirating a game and not buying it is simply the difference between stealing something and not stealing it. To put it in analogous terms, it's the difference between seeing an apple, deciding that the price is too high for the quality of the apple, and then not buying it, and seeing an apple, deciding that the price is too high for the quality of the apple, getting angry, and then stealing the apple and eating it anyway with the excuse that you were planning not to buy it anyway. The acts are under no possible system of morality equivalent.
So, to put it simply, neither a game being bad, nor being made by greedy unprincipled people, at all give you a moral right to pirate a game. If you don't like the game, don't buy it; but if you don't buy it, don't feel like you have some kind of Sacred Right to play it anyway.
And they wonder why people actually crack and pirate games. I can gladly say "yes, I DO have a pirated copy of Modern Warcrap 2", something I wouldn't even CONSIDER a couple years ago and the ONLY reason I did it was because of what they did with the online gameplay with that game.
If your sense of morality is dependent upon the person or corporation you want to steal from being upright, moral and doing stuff you like, then frankly that's not really morality at all. That is to say, if the only reason you don't steal from someone is that you happen to like them and think they're a great guy, then that's no more morally praiseworthy than someone who doesn't murder solely because he doesn't feel like it.
But, really, I'm sick of pirates trying to take the moral high ground based on perceived injustices by corporations towards what amounts to their own bloated sense of self-entitlement.
Because, you know what? You're not owed anything by Activision, Blizzard, or any other corporation. You're not entitled to "playing a game without paying money for it," as another person in this thread said. A game is not an item that really belongs to you but is being wrongfully withheld from you by evil, greedy corporate masters. No matter how bad a game is, it was created by a company, and it belongs to them, not you; it is their property, the same way a shoe in a shoe store is the shoe store's property, or the corn produced on a farm is the farmer's property. If you want to acquire that product, you must pay the company the amount they set. This is irregardless of how much it's "really worth" or should be worth in your eyes; the company owns the game, and they get to set the price. If it's ridiculously high, no one will buy it; thus, it is in their interests to set a price that people will actually buy; this is called Economics. But nonetheless, the game still belongs to them. It is their "private property," a concept that has been attacked by charlatans the world over, but is still the only reasonable way to run a society.
The thinking behind a lot of this seems to be "Well, if I'm not going to buy this game, I might as well pirate it anyway." That is, the assertion is that the act of pirating the game and simply not buying it are basically equivalent in a moral sense. But this is a mere trick of words, and simply atrocious moral calculus. In both cases, it is true, the company gets no money from you; but in the first case, the product is taken by you without any compensation to its owners, while in the second, you pay no money and so receive no product, as the law dictates. In one, you are given the product by its owner and creator freely; in the other, you wrest it from them by force.
To put it simply, the difference between the two acts of pirating a game and not buying it is simply the difference between stealing something and not stealing it. To put it in analogous terms, it's the difference between seeing an apple, deciding that the price is too high for the quality of the apple, and then not buying it, and seeing an apple, deciding that the price is too high for the quality of the apple, getting angry, and then stealing the apple and eating it anyway with the excuse that you were planning not to buy it anyway. The acts are under no possible system of morality equivalent.
So, to put it simply, neither a game being bad, nor being made by greedy unprincipled people, at all give you a moral right to pirate a game. If you don't like the game, don't buy it; but if you don't buy it, don't feel like you have some kind of Sacred Right to play it anyway.
I have a split stance towards piracy. In one regard, its childish, stupid, and while I don't care about ethics, hypocritical. After all, you clearly wanted to play.
But on the other hand, it gives an extraordinary amount of power to the consumer. It creates an environment where business is as much based on objective desire as it is in trust, mutual respect, and a reciprocal relationship, something that can be only good to the Game industry.
By this I mean the consumer is evaluating more then just how much he wants it. He's also evaluating how much he likes the company producing it. In the long term, thats an extremely positive relationship we see very little of in the business world.
The downside is that its basically unique to PC's, so Developers take the easy way out and sell to "konsole kids" (tm).
On June 01 2010 13:01 Half wrote: The downside is that its basically unique to PC's, so Developers take the easy way out and sell to "konsole kids" (tm).
That right there is the Achilles' Heel of piracy. PC games by their very nature are easy to pirate, so any PC company who feels like they're suffering from piracy can simply move to consoles and solve the problem instantly. PC gaming may not be dying as some claim, but it's obviously not in peak condition either, and piracy has had an effect on it by driving off all the developers and either making them multi-platform or purely console.
Piracy against PC companies doesn't work because all the PC companies that are worth pirating either have console sales to fall back on (Modern Warfare 2), or have fanbases that are too loyal to actually go through with a boycott (Left 4 Dead 2, Starcraft 2). Even though Blizzard is suffering massive fan backlash due to Bnet, even most people on this very forum admit that they will still buy the game. Not exactly the most threatening group when looking at it from a CEO's viewpoint.
I tend to blame gamers more than greedy corporations for the money-driven state of gaming today. Gamers can't expect companies to respect them when they can't even organize a simple boycott without breaking down in flames.
On June 01 2010 12:56 Captain Peabody wrote: To put it simply, the difference between the two acts of pirating a game and not buying it is simply the difference between stealing something and not stealing it. To put it in analogous terms, it's the difference between seeing an apple, deciding that the price is too high for the quality of the apple, and then not buying it, and seeing an apple, deciding that the price is too high for the quality of the apple, getting angry, and then stealing the apple and eating it anyway with the excuse that you were planning not to buy it anyway. The acts are under no possible system of morality equivalent.
That's a flawed analogy as an apple is not intellectual property, but physical property (if you eat the apple it's gone). It would be slightly more accurate if the apple was laying on the ground and the choice was either to buy it, steal it, or let it rot.
The end result of pirating: you get to play game, the company gets no profit The end result of not buying: you don't play the game, the company gets no profit
The outcomes for the company are the same whether you abstain or pirate. That is the point that pirates are making.
On June 01 2010 15:04 Izslove wrote: So my post got deleted and I copped a 72 hour ban for posting this on the bnet forums
That's because the mods on the bnet forums are just trying to minimize the damage. They don't want the casual gamers to get a smell of whats going on right now, so long as they remain customers. Pretty much ignoring any more constructive feedback. My 0.02$
Blizzard has been my last hope for quality gaming and a narcissistic maniac is turning them into another EA. I find it highly disgusting to see how the era of joyful creative games we were experiencing for the past 20 years is going to end in a total sellout. Hard to imagine a company like this is coming up with innovations, not talking about something like sc:bw was. Is it going to be wc4, wow2 and sc3?
On June 01 2010 13:21 Spawkuring wrote: That right there is the Achilles' Heel of piracy. PC games by their very nature are easy to pirate, so any PC company who feels like they're suffering from piracy can simply move to consoles and solve the problem instantly. PC gaming may not be dying as some claim, but it's obviously not in peak condition either, and piracy has had an effect on it by driving off all the developers and either making them multi-platform or purely console.
Console piracy is a LOT more prevalent than PC piracy.
Of course most of the kidiots don't know how to do it but chances are they ALL known a computer guy who knows how.
Even the Dreamcasts reverse-spinning disks were pwnt in a matter of weeks.
Hell, nowadays we even have cross-console emulation. If THAT is not a sign I don't know what is....
Also, Console piracy, contrary to your belief, is a LOT EASIER than PC piracy. DRMs generating their protection numbers at random, you can't just apply the same routine and crack everything at once. Due to the nature of consoles, you just have to figure out the consoles pattern and bang, all games are cracked at once.
I love the throwing around of the term "insubordination". Kotick clearly has some sort of Stalinesque superhuman complex. What a delusional, power-hungry, prick. It worries me that someone like this basically has complete control over Tippl --> Morhaime --> all of Blizzard's interests.
Even though they clearly focus on profit I would not buy activision blizzard shares, and I can't really see why someone would. Their business modell will clearly fall apart, not now but maybe in 15 years. Their CEO Kotick made $110 million dollars 2009 and the total profit of the company was $113 million (problem anyone?). I just don't see why running games into the ground for a quick fix would make the share attractive or create value for that sake.
I think what I love most is the $50 to $500 sale. The only time I have paid for DLC is when the game itself cost way way less than $50. I will not pay $500 for features that should have come with the game originally (and would have if it were released a couple years ago)
If your sense of morality is dependent upon the person or corporation you want to steal from being upright, moral and doing stuff you like, then frankly that's not really morality at all. That is to say, if the only reason you don't steal from someone is that you happen to like them and think they're a great guy, then that's no more morally praiseworthy than someone who doesn't murder solely because he doesn't feel like it.
To put it in analogous terms, it's the difference between seeing an apple, deciding that the price is too high for the quality of the apple, and then not buying it, and seeing an apple, deciding that the price is too high for the quality of the apple, getting angry, and then stealing the apple and eating it anyway with the excuse that you were planning not to buy it anyway. The acts are under no possible system of morality equivalent.
Not exactly. Your first paragraph I quoted seems to imply that every action which is morally blameworthy has no bearing on any other moral decision. For instance, let's say North Korea suddenly had democratic elections, and Kim Jong il went out and murdered 1,000 people voting for the other candidate. You then decide to support his re-election campaign by giving him $5,000. Are you saying your action isn't morally blameworthy? I think there is a very valid basis for considering where your dollars are going when you support a company. So, in simplistic terms, I DO consider whether the company I'm giving my dollars to is "doing stuff I like." Because if you just blindly give your money to a company that has no respect for their customers, you're supporting them.
So now we get to the stickier situation of not supporting the company, while at the same time playing their game. Unfortunately, all of the examples you gave have to do with zero sum goods. If I take an apple that doesn't belong to me, someone else doesn't get to use that apple. Software is more similar to books or movies. If I loan my book to a friend to read, is that stealing because he didn't pay for it? Maybe you would point to the EULA disallowing that and no equivalent with a book. The EULA is a one-sided contract that could say you sell your soul to the devil and no one would even notice. But let's pretend that's actually a contract worth upholding. What if your book had a disclaimer that you cannot loan it to any friends? At what point does something you buy become "yours" versus just a license to use it? Should any consumer reasonably expect that when they buy a game at a store, they're only really buying a license? You see, the game is rigged, the tables are tilted, and there really isn't anyone with the pockets (short of a class action) to push back for the user's rights.
But I do agree that at the base of the issue is the fact that you are taking something that you did not pay for, regardless of whether it cost the company money. But again, I think it's really just the numbers involved and the anonymity of the Internet that makes this clearly "wrong." If your friend loaned you his copy of the game that you played for a couple of days then gave back, no one would think twice about that being wrong. But if some guy in China gives 5,000 people a copy that you play for a couple of days and then delete, that's wrong.
Another part of the problem is that there is no pricing tier. For instance, with movies, you can go to the theater and pay $10 to see it when it comes out on a big screen, or wait till dvd and pay $4, or wait till tv and pay nothing. Books, similar system (and libraries). With computer games, there is no equivalent. You either pay $50-60 or you get nothing. For many games, I'd be willing to rent them, or pay $x to get a 3 day license, etc... but they haven't set anything like that up and that's definitely hurting them.
In the end the issue is much more complex and morally convoluted than what I think you make it out to be.
On June 01 2010 18:50 Jaug wrote: Even though they clearly focus on profit I would not buy activision blizzard shares, and I can't really see why someone would. Their business modell will clearly fall apart, not now but maybe in 15 years. Their CEO Kotick made $110 million dollars 2009 and the total profit of the company was $113 million (problem anyone?). I just don't see why running games into the ground for a quick fix would make the share attractive or create value for that sake.
This is very true. Unfortunately, Kotick is not the exception in the modern marketplace, he is the rule. Companies are all laser-focused on milking the highest possible immediate profit from their products, and have absolutely no regard for the long-term stability of their market. Case in point, Kotick is milking the fast money for all it's worth, and when he thinks the fast money has been sucked dry, he kills the studio.
Just look at Infinity Ward. It is abundantly clear that he thought he could force the studio into producing MW3, and at the same time make a quick buck by firing the heads and withholding the royalty money. He clearly has enough faith in his lawyers that he's not worried about actually having to pay that money out, and thinks that this way he can get the best of both worlds. He gets to keep a lot of money, and continue to milk the Modern Warfare cash cow. He knows full well that despite how pissed of many people are about the state of MW2, any game called MW3, no matter how terrible, will sell extraordinarily well.
When many of Infinity Ward's personnel quit rather than live under Activision's thumb, this affected him to the sum of zero. Programmers are easy to find, and he can easily fill up the ranks and crank out MW3, and that gamers will buy it no matter how much he nickel and dimes them, no matter how much total they end up paying, and no matter how terrible the service is.
This, in essence, is our problem. CEOs KNOW that they can basically do whatever they want to the gamers, and we'll just roll over and take it. Just look at the thread on BNet 2.0. 95% of us hate that PoS, yet almost all of us freely admit that we're going to buy the game anyway. Gaming companies know that, when it comes right down to it, most gamers are ignorant to what actually goes on in the industry. They just walk into a game store to get their next sequel or game, and couldn't care less what the company does. Even if we successfully organized a boycott of all the SC2 gamers who know what's going on, it would barely affect Activision at all, since there are still millions out there who are going to buy it and probably woudln't know that the boycott exists at all.
What a shock, the CEO of a huge company is a greedy POS. Welcome to the real world. It's sad Blizzard is linked to that giant douchebag but in the end it's all about the dollars. This is the biggest reason why games have been so hollow recently.. all style and no substance. Studios are forced to pump out games as fast as they can, for the most part.
"User Content" means any communications, images, sounds, and all the material and information that you upload or transmit through a Game client or the Service, or that other users upload or transmit, including without limitation any chat text. You hereby grant Blizzard a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, paid-up, non-exclusive, license, including the right to sublicense to third parties, and right to reproduce, fix, adapt, modify, translate, reformat, create derivative works from, manufacture, introduce into circulation, publish, distribute, sell, license, sublicense, transfer, rent, lease, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, or provide access to electronically, broadcast, communicate to the public by telecommunication, display, perform, enter into computer memory, and use and practice such User Content as well as all modified and derivative works thereof. To the extent permitted by applicable laws, you hereby waive any moral rights you may have in any User Content.
Join up if you aren't gonna take this shit. It's a boycott. And I don't plan on pirating it either, that just shows them we still want to play their games.
Join up if you aren't gonna take this shit. It's a boycott. And I don't plan on pirating it either, that just shows them we still want to play their games.
I just canceled my pre-order. I would join but I don't use facebook. No way im paying $125 here for a collector's edition when I don' know whats going to happen to SC2 and Bnet 2.0
Zuckerberg: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard Zuckerberg: Just ask. Zuckerberg: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuckerberg: People just submitted it. Zuckerberg: I don't know why. Zuckerberg: They "trust me" Zuckerberg: Dumb f*cks.
wait can anyone comprehend what is he trying to state?
Those were statements from the creator of Facebook. He basically admits that he's willing to give out anybody's information and that his users are "dumb f*cks". Not exactly the kind of message you want to give out to people.
To be fair, they were IMs while he was still running Facebook from his dorm room, and the context is unknown. Inferring anything about Zuckerberg's willingness to give out information from that is going to be massive speculation.
Zuckerberg: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard Zuckerberg: Just ask. Zuckerberg: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS [Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one? Zuckerberg: People just submitted it. Zuckerberg: I don't know why. Zuckerberg: They "trust me" Zuckerberg: Dumb f*cks.
wait can anyone comprehend what is he trying to state?
Those were statements from the creator of Facebook. He basically admits that he's willing to give out anybody's information and that his users are "dumb f*cks". Not exactly the kind of message you want to give out to people.
To be fair, they were IMs while he was still running Facebook from his dorm room, and the context is unknown. Inferring anything about Zuckerberg's willingness to give out information from that is going to be massive speculation.
lol youll just defend anyone now wont you....
He refers to the people who trust him with there info as dumb fucks. How much more context do you really need to infer from that?
Join up if you aren't gonna take this shit. It's a boycott. And I don't plan on pirating it either, that just shows them we still want to play their games.
Not buying a game is your right as a customer. However much I think the reasons you are doing so are utterly misinformed and wrongheaded in almost every way, I respect your right to buy what you want, and I also commend you for not pirating the game.
That being said, your presentation is highly questionable, and not likely to attract anyone who is not already a hardcore fan utterly consumed in rage.
I expect the option to reset your stats as a payed "service" later in SC2. Would explain why they were so eager to have this single account system without the possibility to create smurf accounts. "Are you unhappy with your 50% stats? Do you want to get the perfect score to show to your friends? Reset your stats now for only 19,99$!"
Same thing with the realm restricted versions, if you want to play with your friends from overseas go buy the version. Or maybe we'll be able to "buy" our entry to the other gateways later.
It's only that. Blizz (Activision) has learned how to create artificial boundaries which the players desperately want to cross (to be able to play with their friends, to reset their stats because they want to run for a better win %) and they let them pay for it dearly. That's also the only job I really see that this Kotick guy has: Invent new ways to split up services into smaller units and make them "pay-to-play" or "pay-to-use" that would normally have been a whole and/or taken for granted from a buyer's perspective. His guitar hero example shows it perfectly.
Activision/Blizz functions just like the church: They have their followers and believers over whose feelings and longings they command to a degree and they know exactly how to rip that off effectively. Who in their right mind would be willing to accept the following in the real world: "Okay, you bought this meal, now we offer you the additional feature "Spoon" for 5$ and also the feature "Knife" for the same price. When you buy the bundle "Spoon & Knife" you only pay 8,99$ and save 1$! Buy it now!". No one would. Because you take these things for granted, and out of good reason. But when people are addicted or have very strong "needs" they are willing to make sacrifices if somebody is evil enough to exploit them. Just like Kotick - he could also effectively have been the CEO of the catholic church 1000 years ago. "You wanna go to heaven? Then you must give us all your possessions - that's the only way". INVENT out of thin air artificial "services" which are not justified as to the invested work by the provider and let the people pay for it. That only works with people who are dependent. Like we who want to go to US East/West to play with our friends or people in the middle ages who wanted to go to heaven. All dependent and all easily exploitable.
He refers to the people who trust him with there info as dumb fucks. How much more context do you really need to infer from that?
It was a fucking joke to his friend on an IM session in COLLEGE. its a fucking JOKE. Until you find proof of him making deals and selling private information, you have absolutely nothing.
He refers to the people who trust him with there info as dumb fucks. How much more context do you really need to infer from that?
It was a fucking joke to his friend on an IM session in COLLEGE. its a fucking JOKE. Until you find proof of him making deals and selling private information, you have absolutely nothing.
Your right. It is a fucking joke. But not in the way your thinking. Mark Zuckerman has continually demonstrated that his respect of your personal information is syncronious with that quote.
Why do I get the feeling strategies like this, by the largest video game publishers, is going to cause another industry crash like in the 80s? Too many games, too much shit, nobody wants to pay premium dollar for complete shit, industry collapses.
On June 02 2010 08:44 Ghardo wrote: Activision/Blizz functions just like the church: They have their followers and believers over whose feelings and longings they command to a degree and they know exactly how to rip that off effectively. Who in their right mind would be willing to accept the following in the real world: "Okay, you bought this meal, now we offer you the additional feature "Spoon" for 5$ and also the feature "Knife" for the same price. When you buy the bundle "Spoon & Knife" you only pay 8,99$ and save 1$! Buy it now!". No one would. Because you take these things for granted, and out of good reason. But when people are addicted or have very strong "needs" they are willing to make sacrifices if somebody is evil enough to exploit them. Just like Kotick - he could also effectively have been the CEO of the catholic church 1000 years ago. "You wanna go to heaven? Then you must give us all your possessions - that's the only way". INVENT out of thin air artificial "services" which are not justified as to the invested work by the provider and let the people pay for it. That only works with people who are dependent. Like we who want to go to US East/West to play with our friends or people in the middle ages who wanted to go to heaven. All dependent and all easily exploitable.
This makes me feel like private servers for starcraft 2 HAVE to come out so we can break free of the power of these evil guys. Otherwise, we should all just go back to BW, which was made by the TRUE Blizzard, not these fake posers that now call themselves Blizzard.
That is such a BS image. It takes me all of 30 seconds to start a movie on DVD. He's bitching about pressing play on the remote? Seriously?
No, he's pointing out that from the time that you insert the disc to the time you can actually watch the movie, you have to jump through a ton of hoops because of the greed of the company that you just supported by buying their DVD.
I've never pirated anything in my life, but I certainly stopped buying very much music, have stopped going to the movie theater 15-20 times a year, and so on, because of the inability of these industries to moderate their own greed. If I decided tomorrow to start pirating, it would barely make a difference to the industries in question, because I already stopped buying their crap years ago.
DVD and Blu Rays are likely next on the list. The creep of additional advertising and unwanted "features" that are just another form of advertising are killing the joy of watching movies. When I look at a movie on the shelf at best buy or elsewhere, my first thought is whether or not it will be a good movie, but my immediate second thought it 'I wonder what new bullshit they've come up with to force me to watch advertisements now"
Incidentally, any decent TV these days has HDMI or other inputs that allow you to hook a PC up and view media that way. Those who pirate movies are not any more likely to watch them on a 12" screen than those who buy them legit, even if they don't burn them to an actual DVD or Blu Ray. I watch all my (legitimately purchased) DVDs this way, and if I didn't have a PS-3 I'm sure I'd do the same for Blu Rays.
Pirating Starcarft is not the answer. Honestly, NOBODY here knows the final form of SC2 and BNET 2.0 are going to be because THEY AREN'T EVEN FINISHED YET. This is a BETA for a reason. And it's about to shut down so they can revamp BNET.
While BNET is lacking in many features I consider to be essential, that doesn't mean somehow that Blizzard has turned into the worst company ever. If you don't want to buy SC2 right now, fine. Buy it after a few patches (I rarely buy anything before the 3rd gen product). Even Brood War wasn't really balanced til patch 1.08. You don't open someone's coloring book and complain that they don't have all the colors filled in. This is still a work in progress, and I'm sure we'll see many new features as early as after the beta opens up again. And that's not the end. They still have 2 whole expansions to make, during which they can certainly implement even more stuff into Bnet.
Considering Blizzard's reputation of supporting their games and the fact that SC2 is already amazing (Bnet is the problem), Pirating SC2 would be like kicking a little puppy. They're going to be working on Starcraft 2 for the next 5 years at the very least. That's plenty of time to fill in the rest of the coloring book. DON'T PIRATE STARCRAFT 2.
On June 03 2010 22:08 Fyrewolf wrote: Pirating Starcarft is not the answer. Honestly, NOBODY here knows the final form of SC2 and BNET 2.0 are going to be because THEY AREN'T EVEN FINISHED YET. This is a BETA for a reason. And it's about to shut down so they can revamp BNET.
While BNET is lacking in many features I consider to be essential, that doesn't mean somehow that Blizzard has turned into the worst company ever. If you don't want to buy SC2 right now, fine. Buy it after a few patches (I rarely buy anything before the 3rd gen product). Even Brood War wasn't really balanced til patch 1.08. You don't open someone's coloring book and complain that they don't have all the colors filled in. This is still a work in progress, and I'm sure we'll see many new features as early as after the beta opens up again. And that's not the end. They still have 2 whole expansions to make, during which they can certainly implement even more stuff into Bnet.
Considering Blizzard's reputation of supporting their games and the fact that SC2 is already amazing (Bnet is the problem), Pirating SC2 would be like kicking a little puppy. They're going to be working on Starcraft 2 for the next 5 years at the very least. That's plenty of time to fill in the rest of the coloring book. DON'T PIRATE STARCRAFT 2.
you obv havent read anything on the subject.
we waited months to complain about that cause it was beta and we had still hope. now release is near and we have statements from blizzard that go "NO we dont care/diont want to" or "maybe in a distant future we might consider it in some form".
its not like we demand perfect balance. its not like we demand some special features. we want the most basic and essential features we NEED and always had. blizzard says "gtfo" we say "fu shit storm inc!".
First of, thanks for this long post. I am sure it took you a very long time to structure it neatly, and put in all the information. I actually couldn't believe that this was accurate information, and I am still having difficulties coping with it.
I cannot believe that this is what it has got to, you are nothing but a dollar bill to this company anymore. What used to be "Let's release a game, make some profit so that we can provide support and also make more awesome games." is now "Lets just make as much money as possible, ruthlessly capitalize on profit and stop at no expense". This is absolutely horrible, I cannot believe that I have given money to this mob! There needs to be some governmental intervention in this, lol.
I have played all Blizzard games, and I was really looking forward to SC2 and D3. As of right now I doubt I will purchase these games, I really don't want to support these blood-suckers.
On June 03 2010 22:08 Fyrewolf wrote: Pirating Starcarft is not the answer. Honestly, NOBODY here knows the final form of SC2 and BNET 2.0 are going to be because THEY AREN'T EVEN FINISHED YET. This is a BETA for a reason. And it's about to shut down so they can revamp BNET.
While BNET is lacking in many features I consider to be essential, that doesn't mean somehow that Blizzard has turned into the worst company ever. If you don't want to buy SC2 right now, fine. Buy it after a few patches (I rarely buy anything before the 3rd gen product). Even Brood War wasn't really balanced til patch 1.08. You don't open someone's coloring book and complain that they don't have all the colors filled in. This is still a work in progress, and I'm sure we'll see many new features as early as after the beta opens up again. And that's not the end. They still have 2 whole expansions to make, during which they can certainly implement even more stuff into Bnet.
Considering Blizzard's reputation of supporting their games and the fact that SC2 is already amazing (Bnet is the problem), Pirating SC2 would be like kicking a little puppy. They're going to be working on Starcraft 2 for the next 5 years at the very least. That's plenty of time to fill in the rest of the coloring book. DON'T PIRATE STARCRAFT 2.
That's the problem. They expecting us to purchase an incomplete product, and take it on faith that they'll add basic functionality "some time down the road." That is not the Blizzard I've supported since WC1, who released complete games and then subsequent patches were there to expand content or iron out minor bugs. These are BASIC things that should be in on release of any game, period. Considering Activision's track record and clearly stated business model, I don't see how we can take on faith that they'll do anything other than suck as much money out of us as they can, then immediately crank out SC3 and do it again. Just look at Modern Warfare 2. Came out 2 years after MW1, and MW3 is already in the works.
Long-lifetime games are NOT part of Activision's business model unless they have a monthly subscription, like WoW. SC2 has some hope for them, with the premium maps, monthly pay structure for some countries, and their efforts to shut down any eSports that they don't get directly paid for. But the equation will be very very simple. After HotS and LotV come out, which will both be rushed like SC2 itself, they will evaluate whether or not they can get MORE money by continuing to support SC2, or by instead cranking out SC3.
I don't know about the rest of you, but if that happens it is not something I will accept. For example, I loved Supreme Commander. However, GPG gave it almost no support whatsoever, and instead released Forged Alliance, which fixed most of the problems with the original SupComm, and added a new set of problems. These never got fixed, GPG supported it for about two months after release, then never did anything to it after that. It was sad, because it didn't even need all that much support, just a token effort would have polished the game until it gleamed. As a result, I have flatly refused to buy anything that GPG has it's hand in ever again. My brother and brother-in-law tell me that SupComm 2 is lots of fun, but I have not, and will not, buy it, because GPG has proven that they will not do what I expect game companies to do, and that's support their games.
It is unreasonable to assume that ANY game will be complete on release in this day and age. They're just too complex. What makes a game company worthy of patronage is their behavior after the game is released. Blizzard has proven themselves worthy of this loyalty over the last decade+, and if Blizzard were alone then I'd have supreme confidence in them. Activision is not only not worthy of trust, they have proven again and again that they should be avoided, which is why the question is up in the air. SC2 is very likely to determine whether Blizzard will stay the company we love, or whether they've been corrupted, and that will decide whether or not I'll ever buy another Blizzard product.
To continue on the tangent someone else started, the greed thing is absolutely a problem and I find that I am in a position to see it laid out before me pretty cut and dry.
I am the general manager of a movie theater. I run one theater in a giant chain, and as such I do not make decisions about booking films or ticket prices. As many of you are no doubt aware 3D movies are all the rage these days and its getting to the point where they are being pushed down people's throats whether they like it or not.
I can only use my theater as an example, but in the recent past we had a kids movie called "How to train your Dragon", which in my theater, we were showing in two theaters, one was in 3D complete with $4.50 per ticket extra charge, and one was not. Once the movie had finished its run I happened to look at the total numbers for the film. We sold more tickets to the standard 2D version than we did to the 3D one, but as you can guess the 3D one made significantly more money.
And the lesson the Home Office for my theater takes from this? MORE 3D PROJECTORS! We don't care if we are completely screwing over the people who don't care about 3D and/or can't afford to take several kids to a 3D movie. I mean the price for a family of 4 (2 adults 2 kids) is $35 for the regular old 2D or $53 for 3D... we aren't talking pennies here.
To bring this back around... the greed is everywhere, it sucks that I have to spend all day staring it in the face at work and then come home and stare it in the face some more regarding what is supposed to be my entertainment!
Gaming is a ludicrously big business now, especially in times where money is tight, and people look to gaming for getting maximum entertainment value for their dollar. used to be gaming beat out everything when it came to bang for the buck, but then you have people like Kotek who want to thin that out as much as humanly possible.
I could care less for shelling out some extra bucks for quality features, knowing if it was tried and true blizzard content, but now it's obvious activision has it already mapped out a scheme to milk us for as long as possible and is going to artificially shorten a games lifespan just so they can shove SC3 and its 5 expansions down our throat faster.
There's nothing wrong with trying to make money, but the problem is people can be very short sided.
Would you rather make $1000 now and nothing ever again or $200 every week indefinitely?
All these idiots running these companies really are killing the goose that laid the golden egg. They are destroying a company in an effort to squeeze a few more dimes out of it and in the long run are just costing themselves money.
Great Article! I got myself to read this after a few days, and to be honest I regret it deeply. Your Article is great, but these facts are so disgusting and really worrying me about the future of Blizzard-Games!
With Blizzard now being in such a huge company there's no way for them to get back their autonomy, never ever ...
It's not only this Kotickfag if he is replaced for whatever reason, there would be another dumbass trying to squeeze every possible cent out of Blizzard
On June 03 2010 22:08 Fyrewolf wrote: Honestly, NOBODY here knows the final form of SC2 and BNET 2.0 are going to be because THEY AREN'T EVEN FINISHED YET.
Read Frank Pierce interview. He says what you see is what you get.
On June 04 2010 02:27 Plethora wrote: To continue on the tangent someone else started, the greed thing is absolutely a problem and I find that I am in a position to see it laid out before me pretty cut and dry.
I am the general manager of a movie theater. I run one theater in a giant chain, and as such I do not make decisions about booking films or ticket prices. As many of you are no doubt aware 3D movies are all the rage these days and its getting to the point where they are being pushed down people's throats whether they like it or not.
I can only use my theater as an example, but in the recent past we had a kids movie called "How to train your Dragon", which in my theater, we were showing in two theaters, one was in 3D complete with $4.50 per ticket extra charge, and one was not. Once the movie had finished its run I happened to look at the total numbers for the film. We sold more tickets to the standard 2D version than we did to the 3D one, but as you can guess the 3D one made significantly more money.
And the lesson the Home Office for my theater takes from this? MORE 3D PROJECTORS! We don't care if we are completely screwing over the people who don't care about 3D and/or can't afford to take several kids to a 3D movie. I mean the price for a family of 4 (2 adults 2 kids) is $35 for the regular old 2D or $53 for 3D... we aren't talking pennies here.
To bring this back around... the greed is everywhere, it sucks that I have to spend all day staring it in the face at work and then come home and stare it in the face some more regarding what is supposed to be my entertainment!
Thank you for yet another example on why the capitalist system we have at the moment does not work. The reason is quite simple: Managers are only obligated to make big profits and not to the improvement of society and humanity.
Sadly we NEED TO have "improvement of humanity" as the no. 1 rule for everything we do or else humanity will eat itself by raping this planet and then raping each other for resources. We need to improve as human beings and develop A LOT more altruism instead of egoism. Its either that or getting rid of all laws against physical violence, because mental violence / mental rape is dealt to every thinking customer by those illogical decisions we are facing now from Blizzard and there is no law against those.
Oh and btw. "improvement of humanity" does NOT mean new technology, but purely becoming better human beings.
On June 04 2010 02:27 Plethora wrote: To continue on the tangent someone else started, the greed thing is absolutely a problem and I find that I am in a position to see it laid out before me pretty cut and dry.
I am the general manager of a movie theater. I run one theater in a giant chain, and as such I do not make decisions about booking films or ticket prices. As many of you are no doubt aware 3D movies are all the rage these days and its getting to the point where they are being pushed down people's throats whether they like it or not.
I can only use my theater as an example, but in the recent past we had a kids movie called "How to train your Dragon", which in my theater, we were showing in two theaters, one was in 3D complete with $4.50 per ticket extra charge, and one was not. Once the movie had finished its run I happened to look at the total numbers for the film. We sold more tickets to the standard 2D version than we did to the 3D one, but as you can guess the 3D one made significantly more money.
And the lesson the Home Office for my theater takes from this? MORE 3D PROJECTORS! We don't care if we are completely screwing over the people who don't care about 3D and/or can't afford to take several kids to a 3D movie. I mean the price for a family of 4 (2 adults 2 kids) is $35 for the regular old 2D or $53 for 3D... we aren't talking pennies here.
To bring this back around... the greed is everywhere, it sucks that I have to spend all day staring it in the face at work and then come home and stare it in the face some more regarding what is supposed to be my entertainment!
Thank you for yet another example on why the capitalist system we have at the moment does not work. The reason is quite simple: Managers are only obligated to make big profits and not to the improvement of society and humanity.
Sadly we NEED TO have "improvement of humanity" as the no. 1 rule for everything we do or else humanity will eat itself by raping this planet and then raping each other for resources. We need to improve as human beings and develop A LOT more altruism instead of egoism. Its either that or getting rid of all laws against physical violence, because mental violence / mental rape is dealt to every thinking customer by those illogical decisions we are facing now from Blizzard and there is no law against those.
Oh and btw. "improvement of humanity" does NOT mean new technology, but purely becoming better human beings.
Problem is I don't trust government any more than I do corporations and have no interest in them running the show either.
To me the solution is at a very base level, that the general population needs to be smarter and needs to think more. We all have to consider very carefully where our money is going, who we are supporting, and if we really want to be supporting whomever that is. We have to consider that getting a product at its cheapest price is not always a good thing.
Unfortunately those with power have a vested interest in preventing people from thinking about any of this and are very good at confusing the real issues and reducing everything to talking points that don't lead to any change at all.
The first part seems about right, especially based on the pictures used that should be clearly implied, and yes it is biased based on my personal experiences and values. What I was trying to "prove" wasn't that they're completely "greedy" like Activision, but that they have well been influenced by it, even if their actual games are still good for the foreseeable future, they have that tainted feeling about it.
They have "that tainted feeling" about them? Really?
The reason Blizzard makes good games is due to their company atmosphere, design philosophy, and development schedules. If you admit their games are just as good as they were, then you're de facto admitting that none of these things have changed that significantly.
But sure, the fact that a company you like is associated in some way with a company and a person you hate is bound to leave a bad taste in your mouth. But if you're basing your whole outlook on the former company on that feeling, then that's problematic.
I assumed people already know having played some of their previous titles... Personally (although starting with WarCraft I) I bought (some even multiple times), played and really enjoyed a lot of their older more obscure games like "The Lost Vikings I+II" and "Blackthorne"... If anyone hasn't played those and wants to see some of the old Blizzard quality in action... get them, they're awesome and was almost a total fanboy by the point Diablo II and WarCraft 3 came out, unfortunately the company policy took a slow turn for the worse with the release of World of Warcraft, its success and said merger...
But, see, the problem is, you again have no actual detailed image or timeline as you do now...only a general image that can be easily changed and obscured by nostalgia. Blizzard has always made great games...but the thing is, even you admitted they're still making very good (great is debatable) games, and they're following the same design tenets they were then, with even longer development schedules than before. You may not like WoW, but there's no denying it even at release showed Blizzard's attention to detail, quality, and polish; and these are the things that have sustained it since.
And since WoW's success, their company policy in regards to release dates and development schedules simply has not changed. Their company policy in regards to quality standards has not changed. Indeed, the main thing WoW's success has done is give them a secure financial base from which to implement that policy and philosophy...
This was the time when Blizzard cared and more importantly listened to people, when they put their heart into it and it wasn't about "balance sheets", "business models" or "platforms". It was just a company of gamers, making games for other gamers and putting their all into it. I believe that most of them still do (maybe sans the enthusiasm from back in the day and more "professional"), but they're ultimately controlled by people that don't.
The thing is, for the development schedule of SC2, we've had a front-row seat through almost every stage of development. We've seen the game shift, change, we've seen the hard decisions being made, we've gotten angry about those decisions, heard directly from the people who made them, and seen the game take shape. And development of a game is frankly a very messy process; it which involves release dates, quarterly forecasts, discussions of money and profits, and the basic question of how to make enough money off the game to make it financially worthwhile.
And it was the same when SC1 was being made. But the thing is, we just didn't see that side of development with SC1. The developers of SC1 had to deal with finances and questions of how much time and money to spend on the game, questions of if they were ever going to make a profit off of it, questions on how to make ends meet; indeed, they had to deal with it much more then, in a new software company struggling to make ends meet, then in the present with the comfortable flow of cash from WoW. But we didn't see it. We didn't see the charts and graphs and quarterly forecasts...but they most certainly did.
Your perception of them as a "company of gamers making games for other gamers" is nice and true, but it's colored by nostalgia. They were gamers, they made games for other gamers, but they were still part of a corporation run by businessmen. Blizzard has always had to deal with "meddling from above" in the corporate ladder; in their lifespan, they've been owned by a total of five different corporations; they've faced mergers, sales, and financial difficulties.
The thing is, you're acting like the current situation, being owned by a financially-minded corporation with an eye towards the bottom line, is something unprecedented; it's not. Blizzard has for most of its life dealt with exactly that situation. And if you compare Bobby Kotick's statements about his plans for Blizzard with what's actually happened, I think you'll find they're dealing with it now. Blizzard isn't some innocent rabbit unaware of financial pressures and the temptation to cut quality in order to make a profit until it suddenly married Darth Vader; it's a hardened veteran that's earned its space to do what it does quite often through sheer stubbornness. And it's not going to give that up for Kotick or anyone.
And Blizzard development teams are still the same as they were then, gamers making games for gamers. If you've read an interview with Dustin Browder, or talked to the guy, you know what I mean. The guy is passionate about the game, he's passionate about making it great, as everyone who's met him can attest; and he's basically a colossal nerd and gamer. And if you've read any interviews with other members of the dev team, then you'll know that this attitude is near universal. Little has changed in the Blizzard dev teams. You can dispute their development philosophies, but you can't deny their passion.
You assume two things which lead to most of your points:
1) You believe that I think StarCraft 2 in itself is a bad game… which I don’t, because it isn’t and I haven’t mentioned that anywhere, see the thread title .
2) Activision-Blizzard officially merged only 2 years ago. StarCraft II was in development for 7? years (2003), StarCraft II itself looked pretty good even in the videos back in the day when they announced it (May 2007)… The release of StarCraft II was delayed by almost a year because “Battle.Net 2.0 wasn’t ready”. Tell me how exactly could it happen that a game, which has been developed for 7 years had to (re)start work on a basic feature clearly required for it to work in the first place so close to its release date and when exactly did the paradigm change start?
Other than that, Vivendi and some of the previous companies didn’t seem to upset the internal workings much (or they didn’t own Blizzard long enough to do so).
As I stated before, Vivendi Entertainment is a huge multinational conglomerate for Entertainment products and own things like music companies, telecommunication companies, film studios, TV stations/broadcasters and just got into the video-games industry back in the day by buying SIERRA (which included Blizzard), they didn’t interfere too much with the inner workings of Blizzard because they saw they did something right, returned a profit and they didn’t have the knowledge to fall back on and make big decisions. They had ~10 years of that partnership, in which they developed and published increasingly more successful games. Now they kind of merged Activision and Blizzard into the “games group” and while Blizzard still has leeway and isn’t completely dependent on Activision, it is clear that Kotick (thinking he is god’s gift to the gaming industry) has (for now) at least some influence over how they get certain things done… It doesn’t even matter if they tamper with the actual game development process in and of itself, cause a game (or for that matter a lot of entertainment products) are mostly just as good as their weakest part. And from having examined the situation, personally it is clear that there was some sort of interference in the marketing and management departments that push for certain things to be done one way or another.
The most noticeable faults are obvious, I didn’t think I’d have to reiterate them again, and most, if not all of them aren’t with the game itself, I also fully believe that single developers might not be directly affected by this (yet), but the overall product and customer experience IS.
no chat / simple commands
region-lock
no LAN (further than that if B.Net is down or lags for whatever reason you basically can't play)
stupid/broken map delivery/publishing/naming/hosting/restriction system (what was wrong with the one from WC3?)
tied to the one above, can't host or name any games locally
broken ladders
integrated FaceBook (this one wouldn't even be as "rage-worthy" if it wouldn't be the perfect example and symbol for a feature being added because of pressure from above... who the hell aside of a few CEO's actually wanted FaceBook integrated into Battle.Net 2.0 or dared ask for it? o.O) Kotick on the other hand has been raving about it since 2008, and finally managed to do something about it (see the updated portion about FaceBook in the nested Quote on the first post – Page 1)
too much focus on achievements (okay many people actually like this one...)
no clan/guild/tournament support
RealID thing (real name being displayed in several spots IG without being able to turn it off), making it possible for people to be tricked into revealing their name to others “hey, add me, here is my mail” or creating issues when playing in public places or trying to record videos cause the name appears all over the interface.
"value added services" that are often talked about and did more or less get announced, but not exactly what they are aside of the map marketplace
privacy issues
no multiplayer replays so you can discuss and chat while watching
increased price to 60$/€
not being able to have multiple characters (further decreasing the possibility of 2 people being able to play over the same account cause they’d screw up each other’s stats or one person being able to practice with different races)
messing with e-sports
But, forget all that: in the excerpt you quote in your post, you have provided us with a specific frame of reference. And if anything, it only shows how little Blizzard has changed over these years.
When SC2 was first announced, it looked like this:
In response to fan complaints, Blizzard almost completely overhauled the look of the game. Color saturation was reduced, "grittiness" was added back, Protoss team colors overhauled; the game looks totally different now than it did then.
A complete overhaul of the engine was not necessary at this point, for the main reason that roughly 2-4 years (minus the WoW break) had been spent on developing the engine. If Blizzard was run by industry men, they could have simply re-used the WC3 engine, or used another engine on the market, but they took the time necessary to turn out a totally new, well-crafted, and flexible engine that allowed them to do everything they needed to do with it. [Also note that a 3D engine is a lot more complex to put together than a 2D engine; no one could ever put together a 3D engine like SC2s or overhaul it in anything like 2 months.]
Then, they spent three years developing the game while giving the community a great deal of access to that development, with Blizzcons, Battle Reports, etc. Three years. If you've read any of the articles from past live events where the game was played, you'll know that SC2 has been in a playable state for most of that time. Heck, it's been in a polished playable state, a state more polished and balanced than most of the RTS games that come out, for most of that time. If Blizzard was run by industry men, they would have shipped the game years ago. But instead, they changed it around, messed with it, added and removed units, until they thought it was good enough.
Blizzard started the campaign, and decided that, instead of simply creating another linear campaign, they were going to create something bigger, better, more exciting, something revolutionary. And it became so big, and so deep, that they realized it would take years to complete just one of the three. If Blizzard was run by industry men, they would have balked at it, and made a simple campaign rather than delay the game. But they didn't.
And as if that wasn't enough, once they had built the campaign, set everything up that needed to be set up, they set a rough release date, working tirelessly towards that. But in the end, they decided that the game simply wasn't ready, that the campaign wasn't cool enough, Battle.net not good enough; and they delayed it for another year. If Blizzard was run by industry men, they would have released it in 2009 regardless of what state the game was in (which had to have been pretty good).
For Beta, Blizzard has made large changes to just about every race. New abilities have been added and some removed, changes made to the AI, etc. And the dev team is quite literally working around the clock to get it out there; they're basically living in the office right now. They're in "crunch mode." And they're on Battle.net, too, playing games against people. David Kim, the balance designer, plays in the top levels of the game; CowGoMoo, a QA person, also is in the top echelons.
So tell me; looking at this, besides the change in technology and time (a three year dev cycle as opposed to 5-7 years), tell me the huge, massive difference in the picture you see here.
The WarCraft III engine is about 9-10 years old, there is a point in the product cycle of an engine where it is simply too old and outdated to be used anew and you seriously compare changing a few color palettes to basically overhauling (or sometimes even giving up on) entire games? They're not even willing to give people often requested Battle.Net features right now... or comment on why other than “well, we basically won’t”.
Oh but I think it does, because it makes the breach clear compared to how Blizzard operated before (and never overcharged or thought about monetizing every damn feature) and exposes that their business practices as seen today (building up from World of Warcraft and the point of the merger) have a lot more in common with the business practices of said Kotick (no matter how it came to be, if Kotick is directly involved and dictates everything, if he taught the Blizzard marketing thing how to "do business the right way" with those balance sheets or if he plays golf and eats lunch with Morhaime and has talks about the future of his company, directly influencing it) , who ultimately is one of the few in charge of big marketing decisions than their own back when they became "famous" and "world renowned".
If I could *prove* that he or Activision is behind it, I would instead just do that instead, and not bother researching the web insinuating things. Unfortunately there's no open documentation detailing all this or what goes on inside said companies open to the public to do it.
Again, you act like Blizzard has never actually had to think about money and finances before now, as if Mike Morhaime never had to deal with a CEO who wanted to make more money off their properties.
And the monetization of certain features actually is to the benefit of the game and the consumer in some cases. Take something like character re-customization; WoW is based around a persistent character, and if people were able to change that too easily, that would have deletrious effects on the integrity of the game...but at the same time, it is a feature that many people want, and as long as its used sparingly it doesn't hurt the game. By requiring payment for it, Blizzard gives the people who really want it this feature what they want, and by making it cost money, they keep it rare enough that only the dedicated players who really care about this kind of thing (read: not all that many people) will use it. The same holds true for server transfers (Blizzard wants you to play with the same group of people in general).
And, frankly, these kinds of small features simply didn't exist in past generations of games...so there's no direct comparison even with something like a mount store. In the end, though, it's still cosmetic, and it makes Blizzard money. It's not morally praiseworthy, but it's also not deleterious to the game.
How is monetizing something (especially small features) ever to the benefit of the consumer? Your example of character recustomization basically just needs a script that restarts the initial character editor for the appearance of said character and goes through that again, it requires almost no additional effort (maybe aside of locking a few features like changing gender or whatever).
There are other ways of preventing abuse... for instance a time limit or a limit of usage. (can re-do it every 3 months, can only do it 3x total or something like that). Paying money for it is actually one of the worst way of preventing abuse in that case while being the best way to profit off it, "dedicated" (which basically means those that are ready to spend a lot of money on virtual features) people with lots of money to throw away could basically do all those things you described as detrimental on "whims" in such a case.
You can't know for a fact how they will be "priced".
Everyone and their brother at Blizzard has called them expansion sets, referred to them as such, etc. They have also said that they will be priced according to their content. Blizzard wouldn't give away prices this far in advance anyway. The logical and natural deduction is that they will be priced thusly.
Saying they're greedy because no one can prove that they won't over-charge is simply a bad argument.
2) All people that want to play the game at a competitive level, getting all the units and buildings, enjoy the newest maps etc. will have to pay for all 3 parts, especially in conjunction with "no LAN", requirements of all the keys for each account, regional restriction and several other restrictions this doesn't exactly seem like a good thing from the consumer side of things:
Okay, let's talk about expansions. Expansions exist almost totally for financial reasons; they exist to allow a company to make up some of the development costs by using the already-created resources to create new content and sell it.
The reason BW exists is in order to make up for the losses incurred over the long development time for SC1. Blizzard also licensed two other expansion packs at the same time, for the same reasons; they were frankly pretty bad, and are little know today.
And let me also be clear about something else: SC2 is not going to make Blizzard a profit. They have worked on this game for upwards of seven years. For about five years, they have been paying a full development team, and making not a penny off of it; they have hired professional voice actors and voice actors, paid writers and composers and a full orchestra. The amount of money spent on this project is astronomical. Even if SC2 sells as well as they're hoping, the project is going to be heavily in the red when all is said and done.
And it's probably been the same way for a lot of Blizzard's games. It almost certainly was that way for SC1. SC1 made a profit only with the help of the BW expansion and ten years of sales.
But by the time Blizzard got to SC2, they were prepared for it, and they knew the development cycle was going to be long; heck, by the time they got to work in earnest, it had already been long, and their plans were extremely ambitious and time-consuming. And so, as numerous interviews attest, they had calculated long before the idea of splitting the campaigns that it would take two expansions for them to make a profit off of the project. And it will; SC2 will probably not make a cent of profit for Blizzard until the second expansion pack is out.
But Blizzard in SC1 also was committed to making sure that the expansion simply wasn't a cheap money grab; that the people get their money's worth when they bought the expansion, with enough content to make it worth their while. And Blizzard is committed to the same thing with SC2. In interviews, Dustin Browder has affirmed that they want to make sure that everyone gets their money's worth as well; with this in mind, they're going to be creating two totally unique campaigns of 30 missions with totally different mechanics and with a totally different experience than the Terran campaign. And they're going to be adding multiplayer units, abilities, etc.
The expansions are going to be packed full of content, and there's even question (by Browder in interviews especially) if they're going to be able to get them out fast enough to make it worth their while. BW came out the same year as the original SC. SC2's expansions are going to take significantly more time, and they're going to have as much content as a full game.
This is hardly greed, and if anything it is less greedy than Blizzard in the past.
Each of the new "Expansions having as much content as StarCraft 1" arguments are a non-issue, considering both Brood War and The Frozen Throne, while being considered Add-Ons and being sold at a price point of 30$ and below also had 26/27 missions respectively WHILE having 3 different campaigns and different units/levels etc. for each. I don’t see where they come off praising themselves on this or using it as an excuse to charge more, seeing as it remained the same.
Don't make me laugh. SC2's campaign is many times more complex in terms of design than SCs. The BW campaign could be designed in the map editor in a month without any trouble; the SC2 campaign contains oodles of mechanics, units, abilities, art, tilesets, etc not found in the multiplayer. It took Blizzard years to develop, and they're going to be starting again from almost the ground up for each of the expansions, building an almost totally different system
Having 3+ different campaigns to play through, that all started anew at some point and offered a completely new perspective and way of playing on things while not overstaying their welcome in the Single Player part of those games was one of the charms and quality features of previous Blizzard games for me. It still remains to be proven that 28+ missions with the same race and largely same units/base-building doesn't get boring in SP after a while.
Sure, it's a tradeoff. In exchange for not getting an experience of newness that often, you get a much deeper and longer experience. You obviously feel one way about it; but that's only your opinion, and many people would disagree with you on it. It remains to be seen whether it's a trade-off that's worth it...but regardless, it's a design decision, not one based on money or greed.
In short: It is not only a thing of money but also a thing of gaining control and future control over certain things, I think the community would have been a lot better off if they didn't intervene at all into this one and just left it like it was in WarCraft 3 for the most part.
Also I've already said stuff to the following points somewhere in this thread already and most of your disagreements still originate from your belief that every "feature", no matter how minor, bad, greedy, annoying etc. it is or the circumstances it came to be (like leaving something out of a game on purpose in the first place, to sell it later on or leaving something else out that was there before, people got used to and everyone wants back), no matter if a previous product had them already included or not and they should be considered standard is a "good" thing.
Many informed people in the community disagree with you. In the end, I am confident it is good for the community. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
And, just to make it clear, an optional feature is good if it adds value and does not negatively affect the game or take away a core feature from people who choose not to use it. I think I made it clear in my last post, but whatever.
If they feel the need to include something like FaceBook, they can at least put a feature in to ignore/make said feature disappear, because for some people having "FaceBook" written all over their game is like waving a red blanket in front of a bull.
If you don't like it, you don't have to use it. If seeing the Facebook logo makes you angry, then frankly that's your business, and your problem.
For some people it does, even if they take some of this stuff much too seriously xD I didn't include the whole history of Blizzard or the "entire development cycle of SC2" because I: a) didn't try to make a point about that, b) didn't want to write and research for weeks and make this article even bigger with stuff that do nothing to further my argumentation and c) simply didn't know about, feel free to elaborate yourself
Well, sure, I know you were trying to make a point, and I agree you don't have to include everything in the world. But hopefully, I've shown in this post that the evidence you leave out speaks against your point, as my last post attempted to show that the evidence you include does not really necessitate your conclusion.
Because that's the thing about most of the evidence you present in the OP. It could be taken the way you say...or it could just as easily not be. At best, you've created a plausible narrative that could or could not be true; at worst, you've created a blatant falsehood. But because you have not included so much evidence, the narrative you give simply cannot conclusively prove your thesis. And the evidence you have not included goes a long way towards disproving it.
They didn't always refer to the "Trilogy" as "expansions", in fact they clearly stated that these are going to be three "fully fleshed out games, with each title ending the same way." back when they announced it, they just changed the wording after the initial outcry but didn't clarify the pricing model to date: http://kotaku.com/5061980/starcraft-ii-single-player-is-a-trilogy
Blizzard just announced that StarCraft II's single player campaign would be split into three separate products. The scope of the single-player experience was so huge they decided to deliver three different products. The first product will focus on the Terrans, with the Zerg next and finally the Protoss. The story will stretch across three titles. Wings of Liberty - Terrans Heart of the Swarm - Zerg Legacy of the Void - Protoss Each campaign is treated as a fully fleshed out game, with each title ending the same way. The change will allow for more characters, more missions, and more complete experiences overall.
Furthermore, expansions are fine and existed for a long time, usually delivering enough (or with Blizzard and Bioware previously more than enough) content for a small price of something between 20-30$. It isn't exactly precedence though, that you just go all out and announce you're going to have 2 "expansions" to a game that is still years away from release.
I'd also love to see some sources on your claims, that StarCraft/WarCraft 3/Diablo 2 etc. didn't break even before they released the expansions for them, because I find that highly unlikely. Also both SC and BW had things like CG videos, new units, a few new ideas and mechanics etc.
I can't exactly talk on behalf of the SC2 campaign and how complex it is, as I obviously didn't play it yet, nor do I know anyone that did. But from the sound of it, most of the levels are also just "simply produced in the editor" with more work going towards the cut scenes and ship interaction between these missions, which given sound swell but I don't know if they can make up for the other detriments to the initial game.
On June 03 2010 22:08 Fyrewolf wrote: Pirating Starcarft is not the answer. Honestly, NOBODY here knows the final form of SC2 and BNET 2.0 are going to be because THEY AREN'T EVEN FINISHED YET. This is a BETA for a reason. And it's about to shut down so they can revamp BNET.
While BNET is lacking in many features I consider to be essential, that doesn't mean somehow that Blizzard has turned into the worst company ever. If you don't want to buy SC2 right now, fine. Buy it after a few patches (I rarely buy anything before the 3rd gen product). Even Brood War wasn't really balanced til patch 1.08. You don't open someone's coloring book and complain that they don't have all the colors filled in. This is still a work in progress, and I'm sure we'll see many new features as early as after the beta opens up again. And that's not the end. They still have 2 whole expansions to make, during which they can certainly implement even more stuff into Bnet.
Considering Blizzard's reputation of supporting their games and the fact that SC2 is already amazing (Bnet is the problem), Pirating SC2 would be like kicking a little puppy. They're going to be working on Starcraft 2 for the next 5 years at the very least. That's plenty of time to fill in the rest of the coloring book. DON'T PIRATE STARCRAFT 2.
That's the problem. They expecting us to purchase an incomplete product, and take it on faith that they'll add basic functionality "some time down the road." That is not the Blizzard I've supported since WC1, who released complete games and then subsequent patches were there to expand content or iron out minor bugs. These are BASIC things that should be in on release of any game, period. Considering Activision's track record and clearly stated business model, I don't see how we can take on faith that they'll do anything other than suck as much money out of us as they can, then immediately crank out SC3 and do it again. Just look at Modern Warfare 2. Came out 2 years after MW1, and MW3 is already in the works.
Long-lifetime games are NOT part of Activision's business model unless they have a monthly subscription, like WoW. SC2 has some hope for them, with the premium maps, monthly pay structure for some countries, and their efforts to shut down any eSports that they don't get directly paid for. But the equation will be very very simple. After HotS and LotV come out, which will both be rushed like SC2 itself, they will evaluate whether or not they can get MORE money by continuing to support SC2, or by instead cranking out SC3.
I don't know about the rest of you, but if that happens it is not something I will accept. For example, I loved Supreme Commander. However, GPG gave it almost no support whatsoever, and instead released Forged Alliance, which fixed most of the problems with the original SupComm, and added a new set of problems. These never got fixed, GPG supported it for about two months after release, then never did anything to it after that. It was sad, because it didn't even need all that much support, just a token effort would have polished the game until it gleamed. As a result, I have flatly refused to buy anything that GPG has it's hand in ever again. My brother and brother-in-law tell me that SupComm 2 is lots of fun, but I have not, and will not, buy it, because GPG has proven that they will not do what I expect game companies to do, and that's support their games.
It is unreasonable to assume that ANY game will be complete on release in this day and age. They're just too complex. What makes a game company worthy of patronage is their behavior after the game is released. Blizzard has proven themselves worthy of this loyalty over the last decade+, and if Blizzard were alone then I'd have supreme confidence in them. Activision is not only not worthy of trust, they have proven again and again that they should be avoided, which is why the question is up in the air. SC2 is very likely to determine whether Blizzard will stay the company we love, or whether they've been corrupted, and that will decide whether or not I'll ever buy another Blizzard product.
You shouldn't idealize what you may or may not remember. Very few games are "perfect" on their release, most games are just solid. Beta testing isn't perfect, hence why games patch after release because many obscure issues that show up. Starcraft was most decidedly NOT balanced when it came out, not until after Brood war and patch 1.08 came out. It's this sort of continued support AFTER the game is released that I value about Blizzard. I mean look at Diablo 2. Patch 1.10 completely overhauled its system and added in synergies. Despite my current disapointment with BNET, I'm supremely confident that there will be much much more in store both before release and after.
I have found it interesting the number of locked threads on Blizzards forums recently. Anything negative or involving Bnet2.0, etc is getting shutdown. Blizzard doesn't want to hear it and doesn't care. Gone is the company of old when I spent all night on the Starcraft forums just before it's release in 1998. Where Rob Pardo would jump on and chat with the community asking for feedback. We are watching Blizzard to fall into line with Activision and no longer be synonymous with quality. So very sad.
Not sure what I am going to do. But just as I did with BioShock I will probably have to boycott this game on principals. BioShock had out of control DRM and I see this same style of control happening with SC2. Blizzard is dead to me now.
Read 90% of the OP. As much as I don't like the direction blizzard is headed, this is just how capitalism works. There is no need to spin the story to make activision heads look evil. They are doing their job, which is making money for the shareholders. If you spend $500 on guitar hero and $500 on WoW and $300 on SC2, you have no one to blame but yourself, because ultimately, the power is in the hands of the buyer.
On June 05 2010 03:10 pul718 wrote: I have found it interesting the number of locked threads on Blizzards forums recently. Anything negative or involving Bnet2.0, etc is getting shutdown. Blizzard doesn't want to hear it and doesn't care. Gone is the company of old when I spent all night on the Starcraft forums just before it's release in 1998. Where Rob Pardo would jump on and chat with the community asking for feedback. We are watching Blizzard to fall into line with Activision and no longer be synonymous with quality. So very sad.
Not sure what I am going to do. But just as I did with BioShock I will probably have to boycott this game on principals. BioShock had out of control DRM and I see this same style of control happening with SC2. Blizzard is dead to me now.
Blizzard isn't trying to silence any negative opinion. It's just that spamming the Blizzard forums accomplishes nothing but annoying the forum mods. As long as it's kept to a single thread, it's fine.
On June 05 2010 03:10 pul718 wrote: I have found it interesting the number of locked threads on Blizzards forums recently. Anything negative or involving Bnet2.0, etc is getting shutdown. Blizzard doesn't want to hear it and doesn't care. Gone is the company of old when I spent all night on the Starcraft forums just before it's release in 1998. Where Rob Pardo would jump on and chat with the community asking for feedback. We are watching Blizzard to fall into line with Activision and no longer be synonymous with quality. So very sad.
Not sure what I am going to do. But just as I did with BioShock I will probably have to boycott this game on principals. BioShock had out of control DRM and I see this same style of control happening with SC2. Blizzard is dead to me now.
Blizzard isn't trying to silence any negative opinion. It's just that spamming the Blizzard forums accomplishes nothing but annoying the forum mods. As long as it's kept to a single thread, it's fine.
Point taken and if the blizzard mods would have linked to the thread then I would have taken it as such. To me it wasn't that much spam really and not everyone searches or knows if a thread was already made. Especially since the one you linked is in a completely different forum not accessible from one linked on starcraft2.com. There are only 2 forums in the drop down off this link (Gameplay and General).
Although I have gotten rather cynical of Blizzard as of late and that might be coming through. Getting hard to think objectively these days. I still think they are not interested in any community feedback that doesn't fit their already planned objectives (money grubbing from my point of view).
I remember when the merger first happened, discussing its possible effect on Blizzard with another long time fan of their products. I got the irking sense that something was wrong, and evidently Vivendi knew this would happen as well. Every news link for it kept describing the relationship as being one of ownership, but not a relationship; Blizzard would continue acting on its own. Now that we're having all these issues with Bnet2.0, and WoW coming out with all these different payed services one after another, it hits me all at once. I was dupped.
The argument Kotick would like to make is that we get the entire gameplay experience simply by buying the game, which sounds great when you first hear it. But greedy business practice seems like it's seeping into the game's impact on their ENTIRE audience.
When SC2 comes out, you will have to buy several copies of the game in order to get your multinational experience. 'Blizzard' has already been in argument with several Korean companies about who has rights to their products (i.e. who gets how much money). All of these decisions are worsening the player experience.
No...worst of all, they are purposefully hampering the community of their eSport. Nay, they are hampering all eSports. Hopefully what we've seen is the worst of it. I'm not excited about the Korean population fixating on Brood War after SC2 comes out simply because the barriers of entry for the game made it too difficult to popularize.
This and the op pretty much sum up why SC2 is going to fail, why SC3 will be announced soon and WC4 and how blizzard, the company which we used to love has been corrupted and destroyed Don't expect them or "hope" they are going to make the game better, they are just going to trick you into paying for more and more and in the end result in a worse game
On June 05 2010 07:31 BrTarolg wrote: This and the op pretty much sum up why SC2 is going to fail, why SC3 will be announced soon and WC4 and how blizzard, the company which we used to love has been corrupted and destroyed Don't expect them or "hope" they are going to make the game better, they are just going to trick you into paying for more and more and in the end result in a worse game
I'd expect some Blizzard employees to start leaving if they get worked at that pace.
Thank you very much for making this topic and compiling all of that information, D3xter. Prior to this, I was planning to buy SC2 despite all the issues with Bnet 2.0 because I had confidence in Blizzard: they had a history of making great games and they looked like they were really putting their hearts into SC2.
Now, I have lost confidence in Blizzard. While I'm sure the average Blizzard employee is still doing great things for the company and for us, the SC2 fans, I believe the guys at the top will inevitably run SC2 and the company into the ground. Maybe not now, but in the long run, as Activision forces its stupid policies upon Blizzard's employees and destroys their ability to create excellent games.
By the way, psych studies have shown that Activision's profit-as-a-motivator strategy destroys creativity. It actually makes people do worse work.
With no confidence in Blizzard, I now fully expect to one day see Bnet 2.0 become a veritable paid service -- technically you'll be able to play for free, but Activision will withhold key features and capabilities that no one will want to play without. Their actions and the words of their CEO make it clear that this is a very likely outcome.
As for Blizzard vs KeSPA, although I have no confidence in KeSPA either, they are now the lesser of two evils, by far. If Blizzard takes control of the broadcasting of SCBW in Korea, I think there's a fair chance that SCBW progaming will die.
Lastly, I feel pity for Blizzard's staff. Their company has an outstanding history behind it. I'm sure they take great pride and pleasure in working there -- I know I would. But if you look at Kotick's path of destruction, it's clear that these nice people, who care more about making great games than maximizing profit, are going to be trampled by him. If I worked at Blizzard right now I would be crying on the inside. Compared to these guys, us disappointed fans are getting off easy.
To be honest if they start making it P2P and rediculous stuff like that, then i plan on pirating the game
I know talk of piracy is a bit taboo, but thats the main way the market should correct itself. If bnet is terrible, then someone out there is gonna make a better bnet and everyone moves to that - because you get a better experience that way
Lets look at the decisions Blizz has made since SC2 was announced:
1) Split into 3 games (an unpopular, money-grab decision) 2) No LAN (an unpopular, money-grab decision) 3) You can't choose which server to play on (an unpopular, money-grab decision)
I think we're all fooling ourselves that Blizz is still a great developer that treats its playerbase well. I think they've sold out since the days of SC1. They have done absolutely nothing to inspire faith in us, aside from make SC1 and BW (which was over ten years ago). I also think that balance changes in the beta have been pretty crappy - some things have never been seriously usable... Ultras, Templar Tech, for a very long time Terran Mech was terrible, etc etc. And think of all the stupid parts of Bnet2.0 that Blizz is pushing despite almost unanimous dissent from the community - no chatrooms, email-only friendslist, etc.
On June 05 2010 06:12 allyourbase wrote: The section on Infinity Ward was baffling to me. I hope Blizz knew what they were doing when they sold out to Activision...
Blizzard didnt sell out to activision. Blizzard's parent company bought Activision and merged it with Blizzard, and then put the head of Activision in charge of the holding company that owns both companies.
I don't understand how Blizzard can look themselves in the eyes after reading all the shit going on about Activision, and how almost every eager Blizzard fan have started to lose some hope in Blizzard for the first time. For the first time in the history of Blizzard they're actually taking a step back, rather than a step forward with SC2, the only improvement from SC1 is the graphics, which is just retardedly stupid.
By the way, psych studies have shown that Activision's profit-as-a-motivator strategy destroys creativity. It actually makes people do worse work.
Well, from Bobby Kotick's point of view, "good work" = "lots of sales."
The quality of the product itself as a work of art or a creative exercise is pretty much irrelevant to him and those like him. That's why he places no value on creative people and treats them like assembly line workers. He doesn't care if he has the most talented game designers, programmers, etc, because from his perspective the magic is in the way that the organization is run, and the way that the goods are packaged and sold to maximize profits.
Make video games like tooth paste. Sell it like tooth paste. Make people keep buying it, like tooth paste. That's the business model.
What's happening is absolutely obvious, and people are being exploited. You're not actually spreading anything but information, and trying to help people. We could close our eyes to this and just let the entertainment industry be taken over by people like Kotick, Goldstein and Kaufbergsteingeld. I love how this article is written, on Kotick. Especially the part about the jewfro. It's an inside joke, for those of us who know who's involved here. Nice detail.
On June 06 2010 09:01 Perfect Balance wrote: What's happening is absolutely obvious, and people are being exploited. You're not actually spreading anything but information, and trying to help people. We could close our eyes to this and just let the entertainment industry be taken over by people like Kotick, Goldstein and Kaufbergsteingeld. I love how this article is written, on Kotick. Especially the part about the jewfro. It's an inside joke, for those of us who know who's involved here. Nice detail.
Didn't you get banned for being racist in this thread already?
On May 30 2010 06:46 Level10Peon wrote: Guys, Blizzard still owned by Vivendi. Activision has almost zero control over Blizzard. This whole "Activision Blizzard" name was brought about because it sounded good. This whole write-up, while thorough, spins the events and takes things out of context. Think of how many things Blizzard did do because of fan feedback.
The battlecruiser shot, graphics revamp, nerfing of the mothership, etc. You guys are blowing things way out of proportion. Yes, Battlenet 2.0 may be less than ideal, but the core game is still fantastic, and they still are very engaged with the community for a modern game developer.
You all also do realize that everything Blizzard did was for a reason, not because their evil money gabbers. You may disagree with their reasons, but they are not just trying to be some evil corporate entity, and Activision is not trying to make them one. For example, the game was split into three parts because the campaign was so big and intricate. The expansions will be no more than $40, and we'll be gifted with double the new units we would normally get.
TLDR: The write-up is fundamentally flawed. It takes things out of context and ignores many facts without directly linking all the events it described to BNet 2.0's currents state. Activision has zero control over Blizzard, and neither entity is trying to make SCII some cheap money grab.
I haven't even cracked the replies on this thread yet, but it's OBVIOUS that Blizzard and Activision are making SC2 into a cheap money grab.
First, Facebook integration. Blizzard gets paid tons for user information.
Second, expansions. Remember when you could expect 100+ hours out of a new RPG released for $39.99? How about shooters with a 20-30 hour single player campaign. Remember those? Splitting SC2 into three parts is a huge money grab. $60 for the first, then $40x2, that's $140 for a single game. And we're just getting started.
Third, no cross-realm. You're gonna have to pay hundreds more if you want to play against Koreans, Europeans, etc. Sick.
Fourth, "monetization," "microtransactions," and "in-game advertisement." All these things are hideous abominations that have become the new wet dream of a games industry that has lost all sight of artistic, community, and simple moral integrity. This is "nickle-and-diming" the customers. Bank patrons don't stand for it. Neither should gamers. I'm very much a capitalist, but this is just sick. The first time I heard about "microtransactions" some years back in PC Gamer, I knew I wouldn't be buying any new game published by any major company ever again.
Fifth, pay-for-maps. What happens when some $5 map becomes popular, everyone has to pay $5 for the map if they want to join a game that has it? I'm sure there will be something in the EULA that authorizes Blizzard to automatically charge your credit card if you even accidentally join a game with that map.
The worst thing for me is (I think along the lines of Bill's post) that Blizzard is turned into just a money-making-machine by Activision. They are only an engine for their "head organisation" to squeeze out money from the ones who stand at the end of the line - the players. They have discovered a very effective method (as stated to withhold key features people yearn for) to have the game as a medium on which they can carry out their evil intents. It sounds a bit dramatic and fantasy like but that's how I imagine it. Blizzard has been a fucking EXCELLENT company always but since the day they discovered what could be done with WoW junkies (demand things from them they would never do in their right minds: paying huge amounts of money for 0 work at Blizz's side, repeatedly [character transfer, rename, AND SO ON]) - and I don't know how much of that comes from the mind of Kotick and familiars - they apply it to other games which are not necessarily best suited for it but they do it NEVERTHELESS. It's like Kotick saying "Look boys, you are all well meaning and good and you love your games blablabla - but that's old fashioned and amateurish from a business perspective. You may say that you earn enough money with just selling your games and with your cash cow WoW to pay for the (development of) other games like "hobby games" but that's not how things are done professionally and in a up to date business way. You have one game you get money for consistently and two games you are ONLY SELLING FOR WHAT THEIR CONTENT IS WORTH - that's inacceptable. Now we will change that. We will think of ways to squeeeeeeze the money out of even those games' customers - however we'll do it. And I promise you - I'll find ways.". That's what Kotick says, or at least along those lines. It's not about the contents of the games anymore. It's about making people addicted and then fucking them over.
It's like a dealer who deliberately makes his junkies addicted and can then - when they are really dependent on the drug - demand things from them they normally wouldn't do (think of Requiem for a Dream - scene with the women in the orgy).
We are practically their sheep and we have a very small voice in comparison to the IMMENSE number of people who don't actively think about these things and who can be toyed with in such a way. One of my friends has checked how much money he spent on char moving and so on in WoW some time ago and it was like 200 Euros (like 240$). And I guess he isn't even the worst. That's how Blizzard make their money nowadays. And they don't even need to work for it. How long did it take them to program the interface so you can _yourself_ carry out char movings and so on? Guess it's not in a relation to people paying 200 Euros for some bytes to move from A to B by themselves. Wtf.
I have tried once to argue with Blizzard on the subject that their WoW servers deteriorate with time because of "popularity" imbalances of server sides. The WoW server I played on (EU Destromath) has now like 80% horde and 20% alliance and is a PVP server. I discussed in a twenty pages thread on the official forums and made suggestions what could be changed (the worst thing was when they opened transfer away from the server and of course the losing side left almost completely while the winning side [EU Destro horde is a very popular place to be] didn't lose too many players]). Clear caps for the factions when one side becomes too imbalanced, friends invite system for servers, only transfers to servers when one side is in the minority there and only to that side (for free) and so on and so on. To make it short, Blizzard did not reply once in that thread (which is not untypical) and I got the feeling they EMBRACE that chaotic state to a certain degree (where no one can prove anything on their side it being intended) because as long as people are unsatisfied to that degree (but still heavily addicted to the game) they will always look for better opportunities on other servers and will be willing to pay the fucking 25 euros (dunno how many dollars) as many times as it takes in their search for the relatively best playing environment. I bet Kotick would stand behind the one who looks at the player movement charts (dunno if that even exists) and would very much welcome this state of things. I don't know how realistic it is in fact that it's always Kotick who promotes these things, I bet there are other people who will think in the same way and come to the same conclusions. But I really think that most things they do that give them these huge money flows (which are unjustified as to the work invested AND harmful for the playing experience as has been discussed) are fully deliberate and embraced on the company side.
It really hurts Blizzard - you have to imagine the Mona Lisa with coin slots on it - that's how much it hurts them in an artistic way.
On June 06 2010 21:20 Endorsed wrote: Activision made/published Modern Warfare. You really expect something good to come out of a developer/publisher that made such a shit game?
Modern Warfare was a good game. MW2 is a suckfest.
On June 06 2010 21:20 Endorsed wrote: Activision made/published Modern Warfare. You really expect something good to come out of a developer/publisher that made such a shit game?
MW and MW2 are good gameplay wise.
MW2 suffered from terrible multiplayer integration. Kinda like SC2....
On June 07 2010 02:53 Jayme wrote: MW2 suffered from terrible multiplayer integration. Kinda like SC2....
MW2 got extremely ridiculous with the level of Rambo/James Bond type situations. The first one was at least remotely plausible, while the second one might as well have had dragons and leprechauns.
Nice to know to whom the $ is going to when we buy that copy of sc2 this july but... not many reading the TL forums will, in protest, not buy sc2 after readin the OP. Sad to say but o so true.
I will be support Activition/Blizzard by buying sc2. I r evil
Youre not buying SC2 when you shell out your 50 dollars, no no no
Youre buying 1/4 of the game, cause youre going to be shelling out another 50 for expansion 1, 50 for expansion 2, and another 50 for random stuff youre going to need to buy from bnet just to keep the game playable
Don't fool yourself into thinking youve bought the game already
one more small step towards Team Liquid becoming a den of Kotaku-quality posters.
On June 07 2010 17:32 BrTarolg wrote: Youre not buying SC2 when you shell out your 50 dollars, no no no
Youre buying 1/4 of the game, cause youre going to be shelling out another 50 for expansion 1, 50 for expansion 2, and another 50 for random stuff youre going to need to buy from bnet just to keep the game playable
Don't fool yourself into thinking youve bought the game already
So when I bought Dawn of War, I was buying 1/4 of a game, and when I bought Civ 4, I bought 1/3 of a game?
This is such idiotic completely mindblowingly dumb logic. If a game is packed full of features, it doesn't matter that there are 2 more expansions. And SC2 will have more features than basically any other RTS you care to name. Have fun playing Supreme Commander 2 lolol
On June 07 2010 17:32 BrTarolg wrote: Youre not buying SC2 when you shell out your 50 dollars, no no no
Youre buying 1/4 of the game, cause youre going to be shelling out another 50 for expansion 1, 50 for expansion 2, and another 50 for random stuff youre going to need to buy from bnet just to keep the game playable
Don't fool yourself into thinking youve bought the game already
So when I bought Dawn of War, I was buying 1/4 of a game, and when I bought Civ 4, I bought 1/3 of a game?
This is such idiotic completely mindblowingly dumb logic. If a game is packed full of features, it doesn't matter that there are 2 more expansions. And SC2 will have more features than basically any other RTS you care to name. Have fun playing Supreme Commander 2 lolol
Way to take a relatively insignificant post and blow its significance to a grossly large degree. Ignoring the ridiculousness of BrTarolg's claim, you are saying that Starcraft 2 is full of features from release and that you will be buying it. Did you even read the original post? Kotick more or less said that he plans to make Battle.net 2.0 a goldmine for himself.
Have fun with your "features", I think I'll go play a good game that was NOT made with the backing intent of generating as much revenue as possible. Like Brood War.
This post makes me feel depressed about where the game-industry is heading. Ive already pre-ordered "wings of liberty" but if these ideas about microtransactions and squezing money out of customers come into fruition I will stop there, and hope many others do to.
Will this be the fall of Blizzard as the well renowned company we all loved and respected; because in all honesty, the thing that brought Blizzard most success and income has never been parasitic busynuiss-models but a strong trademark and strong goodwill, creating devoted fans and thriving communities. I fear those days might be over.
I hope the Blizzard team will show much resistances towards Activision's attitude. One of the core philosophies on Blizzard's side is to only release a game when it meets their high quality standard, which usually does not bond well with Activision's strategy of making "frequent releases" to make money.
Blizzard survey hints at extra character slots ... potentially Earlier this week, a survey was sent to european players to gather data on ... tons of things related to WoW. Hidden among the general WoW questions was a fairly interesting one :
Apparently, Blizzard is seriously considering offering more character slots to players but you might have to pay for that. Just keep in mind that this is just a survey for the moment and it doesn't accurately reflect what we will or will not get in the future.
I don't get it.. every one of ~11 million WoW players all over the world pay $13-15/month = $156-180 a year = $1,815,000,000/year.. and you guys are just realizing how profitable the gaming industry is?
Personally I don't mind buying sc2 for $60, and the other 2 expansions (if they were $60 each as well). Because $180 is nothing for a game that I know I will enjoy playing for years to come.
On June 10 2010 10:22 nka203 wrote: I don't get it.. every one of ~11 million WoW players all over the world pay $13-15/month = $156-180 a year = $1,815,000,000/year.. and you guys are just realizing how profitable the gaming industry is?
Personally I don't mind buying sc2 for $60, and the other 2 expansions (if they were $60 each as well). Because $180 is nothing for a game that I know I will enjoy playing for years to come.
Yeah well I don't think you'd enjoy paying $10 for a name change, so don't be so enthusiastic about it.
This makes me miss the old days of gaming when it was innocent and unspoiled by big corporations like Activision who doesn't care one bit about anything but how to maximize profit by any means necessary. I agree with SoMuchBetter and others in this thread that it's almost too stereotypical how greedy Kotick is, and he doesn't even try to hide it.
Makes me feel sorry for companies such as Blizzard.. it's just such a shame. :|
Oh and thanks for the opening post. Was a very interesting read, all of it!
I can see blizzard falling to what happened to the other game makers that activision partnered with. Looks to me like the creators of modern warfare had the same agreement going on with activision (the part where they were supposed to be "independent") to an extent, and look what happened there.
Let's just face it. Unless Kotick dies/resigns in an accident all games related to Activision Blizzard will do more and more pay for x features. I wouldn't be suprised if he would say that you can play SC2 Lan BUT you have to sign up and pay a huge fee of some sort and you have to be an organisation or something and that a Blizzard employee has to take care of the installation or something so no one can copy the files. JUST to make more money with E-Sports.
On June 13 2010 04:15 ranyhin wrote: Yea, good read... very angering though.
I can see blizzard falling to what happened to the other game makers that activision partnered with. Looks to me like the creators of modern warfare had the same agreement going on with activision (the part where they were supposed to be "independent") to an extent, and look what happened there.
Nah man, I don't think that can ever happen. This is Blizzard we are talking about. The freakin' gods of PC gaming that never fail to deliver awesomeness (sc2 is still not released so we can't count it, and we don't know what will the final product be). My point is, if Activision tries to fuck around with Blizzard they will make a big mistake, and hurt their reputation only.
That is so disappointing. Blizzard was the one gaming company that really seemed to care and make quality games, I knew Activision was bad, but didn't realize it was that bad. This makes me sick. Fuck Kotick.
Blizzard survey hints at extra character slots ... potentially Earlier this week, a survey was sent to european players to gather data on ... tons of things related to WoW. Hidden among the general WoW questions was a fairly interesting one :
Apparently, Blizzard is seriously considering offering more character slots to players but you might have to pay for that. Just keep in mind that this is just a survey for the moment and it doesn't accurately reflect what we will or will not get in the future.
Seem like Blizzard is trying to find even more ways to milk in money...
Making a poll asking if people would pay for a feature, then making a decision based on the outcome, is money grubbing?
lol.
WoW allots you forty two character slots. And Ten character slots per server.
Their was neither the demand nor market for additional character slots. Them introducing a pay for slots option is selling to a hyper-niche market (like maybe a thousand people tops lol), make a tidy profit, and prevent mass abuse from farmers. I don't see whats wrong with that.
Its not like say, if they decided to charge for chat channels. Which would be money grubbing.
Blizzard survey hints at extra character slots ... potentially Earlier this week, a survey was sent to european players to gather data on ... tons of things related to WoW. Hidden among the general WoW questions was a fairly interesting one :
Apparently, Blizzard is seriously considering offering more character slots to players but you might have to pay for that. Just keep in mind that this is just a survey for the moment and it doesn't accurately reflect what we will or will not get in the future.
Starcraft II is really fun; however, I agree that Blizzard/Activision has become increasingly frustrating and disappointing in recent years with WoW changes, SC2 Trilogy Announcement, and B.NET 2.0. After reading this article, I don't want to buy Starcraft 2.
The problem is, I know my buddies don't give a #$#@ and will want to play, and well I will of course then buy the game and play with them.
The problem is, in buying the game, I'm going to still be frustrated. When I bought SC1, WC3, WoW I was excited, even when the game was broken (I remember trying to get peacebloom and you'd have to relog occasionally because you would get stuck).
Maybe I'm just getting older and a dose of reality, but I'm extremely frustrated.
I knew Activision was part of the corporate world and not the gaming one, but I had no idea of the extent of their greed.
I too am now torn between buying SCII and boycotting all their products. As a bunch of gamers Blizzard made the best of everything, but now being controlled by the evil corporation the second they start making less money they are in trouble and the pressure to make even more money will just grow and grow (greed knows no bounds) and eventually kill all their creativity.
It is a shame because I can see the legacy of SC:BW being ground to dust when the next expansion has Collectors Edition Only Thors that do extra damage, or only people with the latest map pack ($10) will be able to play in ladder games etc.
It is not even out and you know in advance you will have to buy 3 copies just to get access to all the units for multi-player, that additional maps will cost money, Russia has a sub model, the list goes on and on...
LOS ANGELES--Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 has passed another milestone. In a pre-Electronic Entertainment Expo analysts event tonight, Activision announced that the Infinity Ward-developed first-person shooter has now sold more than 20 million copies worldwide.
If that game's success wasn't staggering enough, CEO Bobby Kotick told analysts that the next title, Treyarch's Call of Duty: Black Ops, could possibly do even better. Kotick noted multiple times that the Call of Duty series has grown more successful with each new installment, and said that preorders for Black Ops are tracking higher right now than those of Modern Warfare 2 when that game was this far out from release. Black Ops is set for a November 9 debut.
Activision has been ramping up its Call of Duty development schedule with new games in the works from Sledgehammer, Treyarch, and Infinity Ward and it also has an Asian-focused online game in the works. The publisher even dedicated a business division to the franchise, but there seems to be little worry about flooding the market with Call of Duty titles. During the event, Activision chief operating officer Thomas Tippl said the publisher has recognized the "[first-person shooter] audience has an insatiable appetite for great new content."
The executives covered more than just its popular military shooter series in the event. Kotick set a goal to see Activision become "the world's most profitable entertainment company" in 5-10 years. He specifically noted that the most profitable franchises rising to prominence today are originating in gaming and then migrating to other media, where in previous years those properties were more likely to start as films.
One profitable part of the gaming industry Activision is looking to get into is the used game market. Kotick said the publisher sees a $500 million opportunity in second-hand sales, and is considering how it can get a slice of the pie. Rather than opening up its own used game stores to compete with GameStop, the publisher suggested it would work with existing retailers to come up with new solutions. For example, Kotick suggested offering used sellers some sort of value-added content for a cut of whatever a used Activision game sells for.
Recently, publishers like Electronic Arts have adopted Online Pass models that charge extra for features like a game's online functions. However, new copies of the game are packed with a one-time-use code that grants free access to those features.
This is disgusting and a reason to boycott Activision games. Now I understand why LAN play will not be included because of e-sports and why I will not be buying the game during launch day.
A lot of people in this thread don't seem to understand that the guy's job is to make money. If he succeeds in making more money in the long term, he has done his job well.
Blizzard and Infinity Ward's games are like the Porsches of the gaming industry. Their games are awesome. I have gotten hundreds of hours of fun from War3 and SC. Now, for the first time, it looks like you are going to have to pay more for the games than other games, and more than you did in the past. It's not surprising, because I would probably still buy SC2 if it cost $150, and a lot of you would too.
People should not be surprised that corporations want to make money---the most money they can. Again, if you don't like it, don't buy the game, and see how much it changes things.
On June 07 2010 17:47 FieryBalrog wrote: I love impotent gamer nerdrage.
one more small step towards Team Liquid becoming a den of Kotaku-quality posters.
On June 07 2010 17:32 BrTarolg wrote: Youre not buying SC2 when you shell out your 50 dollars, no no no
Youre buying 1/4 of the game, cause youre going to be shelling out another 50 for expansion 1, 50 for expansion 2, and another 50 for random stuff youre going to need to buy from bnet just to keep the game playable
Don't fool yourself into thinking youve bought the game already
So when I bought Dawn of War, I was buying 1/4 of a game, and when I bought Civ 4, I bought 1/3 of a game?
This is such idiotic completely mindblowingly dumb logic. If a game is packed full of features, it doesn't matter that there are 2 more expansions. And SC2 will have more features than basically any other RTS you care to name. Have fun playing Supreme Commander 2 lolol
Way to take a relatively insignificant post and blow its significance to a grossly large degree. Ignoring the ridiculousness of BrTarolg's claim, you are saying that Starcraft 2 is full of features from release and that you will be buying it. Did you even read the original post? Kotick more or less said that he plans to make Battle.net 2.0 a goldmine for himself.
Have fun with your "features", I think I'll go play a good game that was NOT made with the backing intent of generating as much revenue as possible. Like Brood War.
On June 16 2010 10:57 Barrin wrote: I spent ~ $1,000 on WoW since it's beginning.
Regretted every dime of it. Throughout that whole time I was reminescing on how awesome it was when you could just buy a game and that was fucking that.
Imma buy sc2, but I hope I wont regret it.
I'm not sure how much I agree with the premium map thing. I am a quality mapmaker myself and I don't really care for this feature. I like playing quality maps for free, and I don't mind spending 100 hours making a badass map that everyone can play for free.
edit: btw my WoW account has been inactive for 10 months. woot.
I've paid for one month of WoW and regret it, don't even have it installed on my pc anymore and don't have any desire to play it or the upcoming exspansion.... i can't imagine spending a small fortune like that.. Congrats of being "clean' for the last 10 months!
On June 16 2010 09:46 Wayfarer wrote: A lot of people in this thread don't seem to understand that the guy's job is to make money. If he succeeds in making more money in the long term, he has done his job well.
Blizzard and Infinity Ward's games are like the Porsches of the gaming industry. Their games are awesome. I have gotten hundreds of hours of fun from War3 and SC. Now, for the first time, it looks like you are going to have to pay more for the games than other games, and more than you did in the past. It's not surprising, because I would probably still buy SC2 if it cost $150, and a lot of you would too.
People should not be surprised that corporations want to make money---the most money they can. Again, if you don't like it, don't buy the game, and see how much it changes things.
If this is truly your philosophy, then explain why you posted this.
A question in a GameSpot interview sort of confirms that Activision has at least some control over Blizzard.
"GS: Also during the call, Bobby Kotick talked about a "culture of thrift" in the company. But people seem to think with Blizzard, you just give them the resources they want and then step back, letting them do what they do. Are they exempt from that culture of thrift?
TT: No, and I don't think they want to be exempt from that. The culture of thrift isn't about not investing in the games. It's exactly about investing in the games. If we don't waste money on golden toilets and what have you, that gives us the resources to invest in the games so we make a great game. Subsequently, it gives us the ability to spend big in marketing a game.
I don't know if you've been at our offices. We've had the same office since forever, and we just replaced the duct tape on the carpet because it became a trip hazard down the stairs. And that took five years to get done. So we are thrifty in the areas where frankly, the consumer doesn't see value. We are not thrifty in the areas where the consumer sees the value, which is in the game development.
That's why we added 300 headcount to Blizzard's development team, 900 headcount to the customer service team, 300 headcount around the Call of Duty franchise. There are many areas where we are making massive investments to improve the gamer experience, and then there are areas where we think it's not worth it. So we don't have a company gym, cafeteria, and valet parking. Because the gamer doesn't care about that. They don't see value in any of that. Go talk to Blizzard or the Treyarch guys or the Sledgehammer guys. We put the money where the gamer's going to see it."
On June 18 2010 14:18 hydratie wrote: A question in a GameSpot interview sort of confirms that Activision has at least some control over Blizzard.
"GS: Also during the call, Bobby Kotick talked about a "culture of thrift" in the company. But people seem to think with Blizzard, you just give them the resources they want and then step back, letting them do what they do. Are they exempt from that culture of thrift?
TT: No, and I don't think they want to be exempt from that. The culture of thrift isn't about not investing in the games. It's exactly about investing in the games. If we don't waste money on golden toilets and what have you, that gives us the resources to invest in the games so we make a great game. Subsequently, it gives us the ability to spend big in marketing a game.
I don't know if you've been at our offices. We've had the same office since forever, and we just replaced the duct tape on the carpet because it became a trip hazard down the stairs. And that took five years to get done. So we are thrifty in the areas where frankly, the consumer doesn't see value. We are not thrifty in the areas where the consumer sees the value, which is in the game development.
That's why we added 300 headcount to Blizzard's development team, 900 headcount to the customer service team, 300 headcount around the Call of Duty franchise. There are many areas where we are making massive investments to improve the gamer experience, and then there are areas where we think it's not worth it. So we don't have a company gym, cafeteria, and valet parking. Because the gamer doesn't care about that. They don't see value in any of that. Go talk to Blizzard or the Treyarch guys or the Sledgehammer guys. We put the money where the gamer's going to see it."
Employees don't get perks, have to wait five years for new duct tape, have all the fun wrung out of their jobs or get fired outright...Kotick rakes in tens of millions a year and drowns baby kittens
Added this to the first post, just had to as they offered so much great material this E3 xD
June 15th-17th, 2010: At this year's E3, instead of having their own booth or presentation like EA did, Activision had a meeting room away from the craziness of the show floor, where they mainly talked to analysts and reporters. Read on if you want to know more about why Activision thinks that franchises can't get stale (no matter how many titles you put out there), some of the things they want to achieve, why it doesn't make sense for developers to feel good and have relaxation possibilities while making games or get new carpets and why videogames should be sold like washing powder.
GS: What are you doing to ensure Call of Duty doesn't have the same problem with too much of it on the marketplace?
TT: With Call of Duty, we actually have the opposite problem. There is so much demand for so many new products, features, and services, we have not been able to deliver with Call of Duty...that I would say we're behind the curve. That community wants fresh new content, and so far, we've only been able to provide it through downloadable content packs. They want so many different things: customization opportunities, different gameplay modes, playing in teams and leagues and tournaments, prize play. We tested more than 25 different product features and services with the fan base and the response has just been phenomenal. Our issue is just making sure we have enough top-notch development talent to deliver that in a way that meets the very high standards the community has set. We're behind the curve, we're not meeting all the needs, and we've got some catching up to do.
GS: Also during the call, Bobby Kotick talked about a "culture of thrift" in the company. But people seem to think with Blizzard, you just give them the resources they want and then step back, letting them do what they do. Are they exempt from that culture of thrift?
TT: No, and I don't think they want to be exempt from that. The culture of thrift isn't about not investing in the games. It's exactly about investing in the games. If we don't waste money on golden toilets and what have you, that gives us the resources to invest in the games so we make a great game. Subsequently, it gives us the ability to spend big in marketing a game.
I don't know if you've been at our offices. We've had the same office since forever, and we just replaced the duct tape on the carpet because it became a trip hazard down the stairs. And that took five years to get done. So we are thrifty in the areas where frankly, the consumer doesn't see value. We are not thrifty in the areas where the consumer sees the value, which is in the game development.
That's why we added 300 headcount to Blizzard's development team, 900 headcount to the customer service team, 300 headcount around the Call of Duty franchise. There are many areas where we are making massive investments to improve the gamer experience, and then there are areas where we think it's not worth it. So we don't have a company gym, cafeteria, and valet parking. Because the gamer doesn't care about that. They don't see value in any of that. Go talk to Blizzard or the Treyarch guys or the Sledgehammer guys. We put the money where the gamer's going to see it.
Furthermore, he sees every move they make validated, because "gamers continue to buy their games".
GS: Activision's not too popular with some gamers after Kotick's comments about taking the fun out of development, the Brutal Legend lawsuit, or the Infinity Ward drama earlier this year. How do you deal with that negative perception? Is it something you can see affecting the bottom line at all?
TT: I would say this: When you become the number one in any industry, you automatically get a target painted on your back. That's just a fact of life, so you have to be able to deal with this. I think there's a very vocal minority that expresses very strong opinions. But at the end of the day, if you look at the overall results we've delivered, 2009 was a very difficult year in the industry. And we have succeeded in that environment because gamers continue to buy our games...because we market the franchise and not the company, and they get a great entertainment experience. So that's the most important thing.
When Tippl joined Activision in 2005, he brought with him several years of executive experience with highly-successful consumer goods company Procter & Gamble, which is home for products ranging from toilet paper to potato chips to laundry detergent. He still draws from that mass market experience.
“When people come up and tell me, ‘how can you possibly make another Call of Duty,’ I always tell them that I used to work for a company that every year had to figure out how to make a white shirt whiter,” Tippl said. “And [Procter & Gamble] have been doing that for 35 years with a product like Tide.”
He continued, “You’re telling me with all the opportunities we have, and the technologies and the content ... and all the different stories, the characters that we can develop, that we can’t innovate on a franchise for 10 years? Give me a break. Then we’re just not doing our job.”
Activision has been ramping up its Call of Duty development schedule with new games in the works from Sledgehammer, Treyarch, and Infinity Ward, and it also has an Asian-focused online game in the works. The publisher even dedicated a business division to the franchise, but there seems to be little worry about flooding the market with Call of Duty titles. During the event, Activision chief operating officer Thomas Tippl said the publisher has recognized the "[first-person shooter] audience has an insatiable appetite for great new content."
The executives covered more than just its popular military shooter series in the event. Kotick set a goal to see Activision become "the world's most profitable entertainment company" in 5 to 10 years. He specifically noted that the most profitable franchises rising to prominence today are originating in gaming and then migrating to other media, where in previous years those properties were more likely to start as films.
One profitable part of the gaming industry Activision is looking to get into is the used-game market. Kotick said the publisher sees a $500 million opportunity in second-hand sales and is considering how it can get a slice of the pie. Rather than opening up its own used-game stores to compete with GameStop, the publisher suggested it would work with existing retailers to come up with new solutions. For example, Kotick suggested offering used sellers some sort of value-added content for a cut of whatever a used Activision game sells for.
That last batch of interviews you linked states that they focus on spending money to make better games and not corporate amenities and fluff, that they are concerned more with the integrity of franchise names rather than corporate names, and that they want to continue their success for the next 10 years while expanding the video game industry as the premier entertainment industry.
I am not trying to be a Kotick/Activision defender here, but if you honestly expect those articles to provoke a negative response you chose poorly.
[B] I am not trying to be a Kotick/Activision defender here, but if you honestly expect those articles to provoke a negative response you chose poorly.
I kinda gotta agree with Laski here.
In my humnle oppinion, you're really naive if you think that the game industri have ever been about anything else than making money. What frightens me is the fact that with Activisions merge with Blizzard, it seems that Blizzard will prioritize quantity over quality in terms of game production.
And I can totally understand why Kotick wants to squeeze as many money from consumers as possible - hell I'd do the same ;D - but what I find kinda distasteful though, is the seemingly arrogance and total disregard of long-time costumers needs/expectations/feelings which shines through in the quotes of this post. Kotick really should hire a spindoctor or something.
That being said. I really enjoyed the read D3xter. Thumbs up for gathering all that information and making it into an easily disgestable article.
WSJ: If you could snap your fingers, and instantly make one change in your company, what would it be, and why?
Mr. Kotick: I would have Call of Duty be an online subscription service tomorrow. When you think about what the audience's interests are and how you could really satisfy bigger audiences with more inspired, creative opportunities, I would love to see us have an online Call of Duty world. I think our players would just have so much of a more compelling experience.
WSJ: Is that coming?
Mr. Kotick: Hopefully.
WSJ: Are the customers ready for it?
Mr. Kotick: I think our audiences are clamoring for it. If you look at what they're playing on Xbox Live today, we've had 1.7 billion hours of multiplayer play on Live. I think we could do a lot more to really satisfy the interests of the customers. I think we could create so many things, and make the game even more fun to play. We haven't really had a chance to do that yet, so that would be my snap of the fingers.
Found this on NeoGAF. Call of Duty, for those not in the know, is Activision's biggest non-MMO online game series, a set of very popular FPS's. SC2 is also likely to be a popular non-MMO online game...draw your own conclusions.
On June 18 2010 14:18 hydratie wrote: A question in a GameSpot interview sort of confirms that Activision has at least some control over Blizzard.
"GS: Also during the call, Bobby Kotick talked about a "culture of thrift" in the company. But people seem to think with Blizzard, you just give them the resources they want and then step back, letting them do what they do. Are they exempt from that culture of thrift?
TT: No, and I don't think they want to be exempt from that. The culture of thrift isn't about not investing in the games. It's exactly about investing in the games. If we don't waste money on golden toilets and what have you, that gives us the resources to invest in the games so we make a great game. Subsequently, it gives us the ability to spend big in marketing a game.
I don't know if you've been at our offices. We've had the same office since forever, and we just replaced the duct tape on the carpet because it became a trip hazard down the stairs. And that took five years to get done. So we are thrifty in the areas where frankly, the consumer doesn't see value. We are not thrifty in the areas where the consumer sees the value, which is in the game development.
That's why we added 300 headcount to Blizzard's development team, 900 headcount to the customer service team, 300 headcount around the Call of Duty franchise. There are many areas where we are making massive investments to improve the gamer experience, and then there are areas where we think it's not worth it. So we don't have a company gym, cafeteria, and valet parking. Because the gamer doesn't care about that. They don't see value in any of that. Go talk to Blizzard or the Treyarch guys or the Sledgehammer guys. We put the money where the gamer's going to see it."
Employees don't get perks, have to wait five years for new duct tape, have all the fun wrung out of their jobs or get fired outright...Kotick rakes in tens of millions a year and drowns baby kittens
Except blizzard DOES HAVE A COMPANY GYM, CAFETERIA, AND VALET PARKING
All this shows is how little control Activision has over Blizzard. When you're making 60% you're parents total revenue, its pretty much "I do want I want".
This is blizzards offices. Tel me, does it look like what that person is describing? A culture of thrift?
Keep in mind they don't even accept visitors. They just put fifty statues up to amuse themselves.
I almost wish they were effected because it makes me so goddam jealous. But I guess they got a figure out a way to spend that bajillion dollars from WoW somehow.
Actually the above part which I quoted is not only interesting for what he says, but what he doesn't say.
He only wants one of his product lines to be subscription. He says nothing about having better or happier employees (in fact reading more in this thread seems to show he doesn't want happy employees), not running Tony Hawk or Guitar Hero into the ground, having more success in overseas markets, or whatever.
All this shows is how little control Activision has over Blizzard. When you're making 60% you're parents total revenue, its pretty much "I do want I want"
It's true that Blizzard still has a lot of autonomy now, but I see it gradually eroding. Modern Warfare 2 was one of Activision's most successful products (Activision's fastest selling game ever), and while it pales in comparison to WoW profits, it's still a huge segment of Activision's overall profits, and Activision management didn't bother to treat the developers behind the game well, especially when they fucked with the employee's bonuses so they would receive them much more slowly, if at all.
To be honest, given that a lot of ex-Blizzard employee groups that form their own studios never see the same level of success as Blizzard itself, people (and Activision management) might believe that individuals or small groups don't make that much of a difference in the final sales of products and change things accordingly.
On June 19 2010 07:48 Zona wrote: Actually the above part which I quoted is not only interesting for what he says, but what he doesn't say.
He only wants one of his product lines to be subscription. He says nothing about having better or happier employees (in fact reading more in this thread seems to show he doesn't want happy employees), not running Tony Hawk or Guitar Hero into the ground, having more success in overseas markets, or whatever.
Trying to argue over what any representative didn't say in an interview is both misleading and a weak argument. He also said nothing about whether Activision plans on going to the moon any time soon. Hyperbole to be sure, but it illustrates the point - just because it's not mentioned there doesn't mean it's not a topic. The questions weren't asked, or he didn't have a response prepared (more likely) on those topics.
I'm pretty against Activision on all of this (cancelled my pre-order of SC2, etc. etc. etc. bandwagon), but complaining about the things they didn't say is a pretty poor argument to be trying to make.
All this shows is how little control Activision has over Blizzard. When you're making 60% you're parents total revenue, its pretty much "I do want I want"
It's true that Blizzard still has a lot of autonomy now, but I see it gradually eroding. Modern Warfare 2 was one of Activision's most successful products (Activision's fastest selling game ever), and while it pales in comparison to WoW profits, it's still a huge segment of Activision's overall profits, and Activision management didn't bother to treat the developers behind the game well, especially when they fucked with the employee's bonuses so they would receive them much more slowly, if at all.
To be honest, given that a lot of ex-Blizzard employee groups that form their own studios never see the same level of success as Blizzard itself, people (and Activision management) might believe that individuals or small groups don't make that much of a difference in the final sales of products and change things accordingly.
Well, I'm not going to argue with this fear, its very valid and I even share it, but there is a crucial difference between Mike Morhaime and Frank Zampell and Jason West.
IW-ward is owned by Activision. Blizzard is owned by Activision Blizzard. Its a subtle difference, but significant.
On June 19 2010 06:46 Laski wrote: That last batch of interviews you linked states that they focus on spending money to make better games and not corporate amenities and fluff, that they are concerned more with the integrity of franchise names rather than corporate names, and that they want to continue their success for the next 10 years while expanding the video game industry as the premier entertainment industry.
I am not trying to be a Kotick/Activision defender here, but if you honestly expect those articles to provoke a negative response you chose poorly.
You're right, it may be misread... and it was a little too long anyways so I think I'll cut it down a little and focus on the interesting parts...
Although it's basically more of the same "we'll run these brands into the ground" argumentation because (despite what happened to Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero last year when they closed down 3+ companies) they seem to not realize that oversaturating a market with something can be a bad thing
The other point related to the "there is so much demand for features and services" is another rehash and self-justification of his earlier quotes/mentions that "people want to pay for them"... Just cause someone thinks it is a good idea to change his name or a lot of people want some minor game features like say a "pet" (or whatever you can think of really) doesn't exactly mean that they should cost 25$... Usually (in the past) such suggestions if deemed good were delivered in free Patches or Add-Ons (like Valve still does it) to please the people paying a Subscription to a service or thanking them for buying your game (and they continued doing so, cause they loved you).
How you think that taking away every enticement to work somewhere while depressing and overworking your employees (or his awesome example of letting them wait 5 years to fix a carpet with tape xD) is going to help the morale and making a better game is beyond me...
People work best and are creative when they're happy, and especially Blizzard was proof of that:
It looks like Blizzard Entertainment got yet another game in early development. If you are a programmer with awesome skills and experience in the game industry, you have the opportunity to join the best international game studios and all what comes attached to that: good salary, benefits, reputation and access to the in-house gym and cafeteria to boot.
I understand that at the end of the day, a company has to make money. But the idea that Activision chews developers up and spits them out really isn't anything new. They tried to do the same thing with the Civilization series that they did with Call of Duty and Guitar Hero back in the early part of the decade.
Something you might consider is that this company doesn't actually produce anything. Essentially their business model is, and always has been, extracting wealth from capital. Creative people need to be inspired, not flogged with balance sheets rolled up in duct tape. That goes back to the idea that at the end of the day, people need a reason to spend their money. If the people who develop their games are working in a cubicle farm as opposed to an environment that cultivates creativity and fun, the games are going to begin to reflect that, as has already been stated. So this really begins and ends with an informed consumer, but there is a greater point here that I think a lot of people are oblivious to.
Even though Blizzard may be an exception in terms of Activision's attitude toward the people who supply them with the products they sell, it's simply due to the fact that the company didn't get into their business model at the ground level. If you think that Blizzard is somehow going to be immune to Activision's culture looking forward, I dare say you may be a bit naive, because the act of milking a brand for all it's worth is already present in Warcraft. I don't mean just cosmetic things like model recolors. Rampant botting and gold selling indicate to me that the company has developed a cynical attitude toward their customers as well, and they can get away with it specifically because of branding, name recognition and the fact that they are a major distributor. It's already pay-per-win in the sense that they construct artificial barriers to progress that dictate you pay more subscription dollars. If you think they aren't using this business model to manipulate their player base, again, I dare say you may be more than a bit naive. Look at Activision's interest in other pay-per-win ventures.
There is a specific reason behind their decision to make it easier than ever for hackers to hack, botters to bot, and for the implementation of features that have eroded the once close-knit community down to a nub. You think all these gear ninjas and nasty, anti-social people are so prevalent just because of random happenstance? I dare say that they are anything but random, but that these decisions were made to keep the customer playing, and paying longer.
Incredibly well thought out and implemented post. Its good to make the gaming public actually aware of what the company does. This really just solidifies the opinion i had beforehand that blizzard really is the good guy being bullied by blactivision
This is quite the summary I must say! One of the greatest threads i've ever read on a forum, if not the greatest. You brought a lot of information into one place where it has full impact. Really neat topic and i'm glad this post is here to summarize it and inform more people on just how this whole thing is playing out... One thing I noticed you didn't specifically mention, which I don't blame you being on a SC2 forum, is that for DLC releases for their Xbox games, Activision has slowly been increasing the prices. For example map packs for CoD (call of duty) used to be ~800 MSP (microsoft points) which is like $10 or something, but now they're 1200 points which is $15. I think that we'll see the same trend with micropayments with SC2... They'll test the water with low prices and then ramp them up to see what they can get away with. Just my thoughts though. Once again really good post!!
Man after reading the last part about E3 a little of me died inside. I can seriously feel that we're going to get screwed over by micro transactions in SC2. I don't even want to imagine how D3 will be with regards to that now.
Robert Kotick is the hallmark of what happens when a software publishing studio becomes too large. while largely a proponent of capitalist system, the corporate model in the gaming industry is disastrous. with activision-blizzard (soon to be activision-blizzard-bungie... *irk* ) becoming a huge corporation we see the management shifting from in-house enthusiasts to outside mercenarial professional management. The problem begins at the board of directors, a group of investors whose only concern is how big the difference from the revenue line subtracted from the cost line is. Robert Kotick is a product of the corporate model and an unfortunate one at that.
Though can you completely blame him? Kotick is a professional manager and his boss is the board and they can fire him anytime they feel his job is less than "satisfactory." Obviously he is expected to be profit maximizing. Blizzard's merger with Activision was depressing but Blizzard's autonomy has certainly been noticed and u can tell activision's acknowledgement of the near perfect forumla blizzard has concocted.
I will say Kotick's idea for ingame advertising in starcraft is beyond awful and two thumbs down for that idea.
I don’t mind being whored out to a bunch of money-grubbing pricks in the gaming world, since it basically holds true everywhere else in life. But some of the things he said are just plain awful. I mean we all know that the point it to maximize profit but when he straight up says “Don’t care, you’re gonna buy it anyways” his arrogance kind of gets on my nerves. Unfortunately, SC2, and D3 are likely going to go the way of WoW, but don’t worry, there will be an SC3 and D4 before you know it right?
Or maybe, they will try to fire all of the blizzard employees instead of paying them like they did with IW and then they will form their own company and we will get our beloved blizzard back…minus the games we love since activi$ion has the rights to them.
Sorry, but I don't see whats so bad about blizzard. You have Bnet.2 although at the current state is not that good, however they will improve it i.e. adding chat channels and cross realm play.
But, people slagging off Activision are naive in a sense that all businesses are like this. To survive and build a company you need to make ruthless decisions, for example even google decided to censor their search engine in China.
Also, WoW isn't SC2, you can't really have a pay to play feature in it.
P.S. But, yeah for people who think that a company doesn't want to make a lot of money and exploit their customer base is naive, espically in a cut throat business that is video games.
P.P.S. Also, in a way MW2 seems rushed as its buggy as hell and SC2 doesn't really suffer that problem and seems sort of balanced in the beta.
P.P.P.S. Granted, a lot of the problems are in the people who buy games. MW2 sucks however is hugely popular and sold loads.
There is only one thing people like this listen to MONEY!!! If you want this culture to change DON'T BUY THEIR PRODUCTS if you lack the fortitude to do this than don't cry when they exploit your passion for gaming and charge you monthy for the privilege of playing online (and the games are client hosted by you or your opponent , the servers just connect you to each other for matchmaking), charge you for new maps, charge you to buy the game, charge you to play in tournaments, release 2 expansions or sequals a year, charged for anti hack updates (because if they can't make money from cheat updates they won't bother making them. Do you think they care if your experience gets ruined, if they believe your still so gullible you'll keep forking over your money regardless?)Blizzard is not Blizzard anymore, it's Activision Blizzard, the company you love is gone forever. RIP BLIZZARD the best damn gaming company that has ever existed. You can always be patient and hopeful and just get the inevitable cracked SC2 which will have chat rooms, free private servers, multiple accounts, not require your credit card number, and you won't be supporting this kind of repulsive greed and manipulation. Let me add that this is strictly hypothetical and no cracked online sc2 exists to my knowledge.
Watch from 0:27 to the 1 minute mark. Would Dusting be making jokes like this if he knew then what we all know today about Bnet 2.0 and the sequel hungry Activision?
"""Guys, Blizzard still owned by Vivendi. Activision has almost zero control over Blizzard. This whole "Activision Blizzard" name was brought about because it sounded good. This whole write-up, while thorough, spins the events and takes things out of context. Think of how many things Blizzard did do because of fan feedback.
The battlecruiser shot, graphics revamp, nerfing of the mothership, etc. You guys are blowing things way out of proportion. Yes, Battlenet 2.0 may be less than ideal, but the core game is still fantastic, and they still are very engaged with the community for a modern game developer.
You all also do realize that everything Blizzard did was for a reason, not because their evil money gabbers. You may disagree with their reasons, but they are not just trying to be some evil corporate entity, and Activision is not trying to make them one. For example, the game was split into three parts because the campaign was so big and intricate. The expansions will be no more than $40, and we'll be gifted with double the new units we would normally get.
TLDR: The write-up is fundamentally flawed. It takes things out of context and ignores many facts without directly linking all the events it described to BNet 2.0's currents state. Activision has zero control over Blizzard, and neither entity is trying to make SCII some cheap money grab.""""
This not true at all....
Activision may not own Blizzard however they still have a significant influence over the company. Hence is why they moved a COO from Activision to Blizzard. Activision will push there companies core policies, beliefs, Mission Statement, as well as other practice with Blizzard.
The corruption will be slow and take many years but will eventually happen. Do understand though that a companies sole reason for being is to provide profits to its shareholders.
Activisions Influence:
Starcraft 2 moving to have 2 Expansions (Although this can be a good thing) "Total Control" over Map Publishing (Absolute Bullshit) Lack of LAN Support Facebook Integration No Chat Channels (Does this look like other Activision Titles?)
This is activision telling us what they think what is best for us...
Still want to argue that Activision has no influence over Blizzard... If they didn't want to have an influence over Blizzard You think they would have spent Billions on an investment and not try and have some kind of influence over it?
On June 21 2010 00:07 Ivo wrote: There is a specific reason behind their decision to make it easier than ever for hackers to hack, botters to bot, and for the implementation of features that have eroded the once close-knit community down to a nub. You think all these gear ninjas and nasty, anti-social people are so prevalent just because of random happenstance? I dare say that they are anything but random, but that these decisions were made to keep the customer playing, and paying longer.
Did you register just to post the most unlikely conspiracy theory of all time? Never mind, the whole thread is like a Michael Moore documentary so it fits right in.
Activision Out To Improve Image Being #1 has its downsides. June 21, 2010 by Jim Reilly With its ongoing court battle between Infinity Ward, increased pricing of its map packs, and talk of subscription-based plans for its franchises, Activision hasn't exactly made many friends with gamers over the past year.
In an interview with IGN during E3 last week, COO Thomas Tippl said he recognizes there is a contingent of gamers out there that view the company in a very negative light, and that Activision is aiming to improve its customer relationship.
"Obviously, we stay connected to what's going on in the communities so we're not ignorant that there's a very vocal minority out there that has some very strong feelings," said Tippl. "Whenever you become #1 in any industry, you automatically get a target painted on your back. You've got to be able to live with that."
"There are many things we can probably do better in the way we communicate with the communities so that we don't run the risk that certain things get pulled out of context and blown out of proportion."
Tippl noted that while improving relationships with fans needs to be taken seriously, the company is not trying to lose focus on what's most important: developing and publishing videogames.
"At the end of the day, when you look at 2009 and what people bought, it's Activision games. We were the only publisher that had success in 2009. No one else did. We're focused on producing great products," he added.
"Now, can we do a better job from a PR and community management perspective? I think we can. We are focused on doing that, but you will always have a vocal minority that no matter what you do they're not going to be happy."
An excellent read. As a business student, I respect Kutick's uncanny ability to rape a game for all it's profit. As a gamer though, and a die-hard Blizzard fan, I worry about how this may effect Blizzard as a company.
Only time will tell I guess, but so far, it's not looking good. If Blizz every goes the route of Infinity Ward, and loses it's key people, I'll be off the Blizz train for good, and won't be buying Activision's games either. Until then, I feel Blizzard has enough autonomy to continue to make excellent games. Some of the selling out we've seen recently worries me, but only time will tell if they'll reach a point that I can no longer handle. Luckily, they've yet to force something on me that I don't want. I'm a supporter of more expansions, because I feel it'll make for a much longer and more thorough story. Aside from that, the fees that have been added to WoW are optional, and I'm fine with that.
I suppose only time will tell if it becomes too much to handle.
The paranoia about in this thread is mind boggling. Blizzard is a mostly autonomous studio known for making extremely few but well made products. Blizzard is also known for being loyal to its fans. As soon as these things change, so does Blizzard's profits. Try having a little faith in them.
As for some of the complaints about monetization of certain things, I question, what would you prefer? Personally I am excited that the game is going to have 3 parts (mind you, only one more than War3 or original StarCraft) because rather than indicate that the game is going to be more costly, it instead tells me there will be more to it. And as for the potential money in buying maps or replays or whatever else - these are good things if you like progaming. The more money being brought into the game through whatever microtransactions go on just mean there is more money to be thrown around to competitive players and also gives mapmakers and the like a way to make some money for all their efforts.
On June 30 2010 02:51 Vise wrote: "I worry about how this may effect Blizzard as a company."
What? didn't you notice already all the extra fees, the 3 expansions and all the other bullshit like battlenet 2.0 did?
Reread my post. I say I'm a fan of the extra expansions, and I don't mind the extra fees in WoW because they're option. In regards to SC2, buying maps is pretty iffy, but I'll have to wait and see how that system works before I can judge it.
On June 30 2010 02:51 Vise wrote: "I worry about how this may effect Blizzard as a company."
snip
In regards to SC2, buying maps is pretty iffy, but I'll have to wait and see how that system works before I can judge it.
Now that's an over-used and a meaningless sentence to utter: "I'll have to wait and see before I judge" . I suppose it makes people feel less judgmental and therefore more intellectual? Because of the science objectivity thing? This isn't rocket science, so objectivity of mind doesn't matter, because the thought process needed to resolve the question "eeee is this good for me?" isn't really a whole lot in this instance. That again may depend on the relative brain size, but I diverge.
How do you think it can be good (let alone better) when you'll be paying for something that is currently free and currently adequate? In what universe, with what economic/thermodynamic laws could that even begin to be categorized in 'good'? If you're one of the rare breed that wants to reward good work, no matter the expectations of the creator of which; and you happen to find yourself nerdgasming because the map is so good, you can always donate. Most of the map creators accept donations anyway.
Now the danger with this is that once the system is here, it will never go away. You'll be bound to buy the maps no matter what, be paying for the thing that used to be free, no matter what nominal a price. If you refuse to pay, you'll be stuck on custom maps that are subpar in every way to the what-used-to-be the free ones. And the argument that it'll stimulate the imagination and the creation of map makers amongst us is bogus. Looking at the AppStore of Apple for the iPhone as an example model; the big profit makers are the big groups of programmers, not the individual app designers (some get lucky of course, but that is due to iphone's extensive customer exposure, there's millions and millions of iphone users, unlike starcraft) . But, in return, every useful portion of all the apps are for sale, if not the whole of the apps. The only person out of pocket is yourself. And i think there'd be just as many apps out (of the same standards) even if there were no financial incentive.
The big winner will be Blizzard, both with the commission and their published maps (which i somehow think would outnumber anyone or any group of map makers), there's more money in it for them afterall, and that's what they're in the 'game' for. Not to make the fans happy. What's more annoying is that they're flaunting it in our faces by making blatant statements like "we spend more money on our lawyers then game developers, we cut the budget like this and that, we feel like the gamers should pay more for the gaming experience". And even more annoying is a gamer agreeing with the above sentiments. Grr
So stop trying to sophisticate every issue you can wrap your mind around to, apply that energy to your studies or something else productive lol. And sorry for the aggression but i needed my daily dose of argumentative behavior. /rant
On July 02 2010 21:56 mikado wrote: And i think there'd be just as many apps out (of the same standards) even if there were no financial incentive.
And by the same logic, if nobody was allowed to charge money for music or movies, there would be just as many movies and albums of the same standards out for free.
On July 02 2010 21:56 mikado wrote: And i think there'd be just as many apps out (of the same standards) even if there were no financial incentive.
And by the same logic, if nobody was allowed to charge money for music or movies, there would be just as many movies and albums of the same standards out for free.
Eh.. I dont think so... making apps for iphones or anything for that matter (making a mod for diablo II) allows programmers to show their abilities to companies and find a job.
If you wanna go by the same logic, it would go as people who create/write a short movie/song and put it on youtube or get public exposure in other way to get picked up by agents for hollywood.
Movie or music is equivalent to either the iphone or the game itself with the respective analogies. Not to maps, be careful to make the distinction. It'd be like charging for the hidden track or for behind the scenes reels.
On July 02 2010 21:56 mikado wrote: Now that's an over-used and a meaningless sentence to utter: "I'll have to wait and see before I judge" . I suppose it makes people feel less judgmental and therefore more intellectual? Because of the science objectivity thing? This isn't rocket science, so objectivity of mind doesn't matter, because the thought process needed to resolve the question "eeee is this good for me?" isn't really a whole lot in this instance. That again may depend on the relative brain size, but I diverge.
How do you think it can be good (let alone better) when you'll be paying for something that is currently free and currently adequate? In what universe, with what economic/thermodynamic laws could that even begin to be categorized in 'good'? If you're one of the rare breed that wants to reward good work, no matter the expectations of the creator of which; and you happen to find yourself nerdgasming because the map is so good, you can always donate. Most of the map creators accept donations anyway.
Now the danger with this is that once the system is here, it will never go away. You'll be bound to buy the maps no matter what, be paying for the thing that used to be free, no matter what nominal a price. If you refuse to pay, you'll be stuck on custom maps that are subpar in every way to the what-used-to-be the free ones. And the argument that it'll stimulate the imagination and the creation of map makers amongst us is bogus. Looking at the AppStore of Apple for the iPhone as an example model; the big profit makers are the big groups of programmers, not the individual app designers (some get lucky of course, but that is due to iphone's extensive customer exposure, there's millions and millions of iphone users, unlike starcraft) . But, in return, every useful portion of all the apps are for sale, if not the whole of the apps. The only person out of pocket is yourself. And i think there'd be just as many apps out (of the same standards) even if there were no financial incentive.
The big winner will be Blizzard, both with the commission and their published maps (which i somehow think would outnumber anyone or any group of map makers), there's more money in it for them afterall, and that's what they're in the 'game' for. Not to make the fans happy. What's more annoying is that they're flaunting it in our faces by making blatant statements like "we spend more money on our lawyers then game developers, we cut the budget like this and that, we feel like the gamers should pay more for the gaming experience". And even more annoying is a gamer agreeing with the above sentiments. Grr
So stop trying to sophisticate every issue you can wrap your mind around to, apply that energy to your studies or something else productive lol. And sorry for the aggression but i needed my daily dose of argumentative behavior. /rant
All I hear here is "I want everything for free" and "people want to give me free things."
Personally, I try to take everything I get for free as a bonus with a heathly dose of appreciation.
You've paid for it all along, it wasn't free anyway.
Your explanation is that it has been free so far because they were being nice to you as a company? And you were grateful for that. That is an unhealthy and unrealistic view of things if you ask me
The availability of custom maps/map kits are all factored into the cost of the product you're buying, in economic terms, that happens to be Starcraft in this case. So you've paid for it all along, the price was just factored in to the final sale price up until now. What they're proposing now is an extra cost for the same service. The product value is less for you as a gamer then what it was before per dollar, how can that ever be good for you? So it's not 'i want everything for free', it's 'i want same or more product value for my money'. That's what competitiveness in market is all about, that's what drives capitalism.
MW2 was a huge success for 3-4 months, then it died. CoD4 is still active and competitively played on LANs after almost 3 years. MW2 certainly made Activision more money but CoD4 is the game that is still popular. It astonishes me that Activision doesn't care about longevity and competitive success.
Activison was once good but now it is more like a junkey trying to make quick cash.
On July 02 2010 22:40 mikado wrote: You've paid for it all along, it wasn't free anyway.
Your explanation is that it has been free so far because they were being nice to you as a company? And you were grateful for that. That is an unhealthy and unrealistic view of things if you ask me
The availability of custom maps/map kits are all factored into the cost of the product you're buying, in economic terms, that happens to be Starcraft in this case. So you've paid for it all along, the price was just factored in to the final sale price up until now. What they're proposing now is an extra cost for the same service. The product value is less for you as a gamer then what it was before per dollar, how can that ever be good for you? So it's not 'i want everything for free', it's 'i want same or more product value for my money'. That's what competitiveness in market is all about, that's what drives capitalism.
Nobody is removing the ability to make free maps, I don't see what you're on about.
On May 31 2010 01:34 UnderWorld_Dream wrote: Huge work into this, and very interesting.
I hate money whores and i don't want my favorite game to be a product for the $profit of someone. But let's face it, the goal of any compagny is to make benifits and the more they do, the more they will try to do.
For those saying: 'im not buying sc2 anymore': Well, are you really gonna sacrifice all the fun and entertainement you could have with this game because of that guy? You dont wanna lend your money to them? Well thats also a greedy comment IMO I mean, not being willing to buy a game because the owners are looking for profit is kinda greedy in itself, isnt it ?
Just leave the money-minded people focused on their profits. I will be focusing on playing the game because that is what I like.
They can have all the money they want i just don't care. I will have more fun than them in life then. Com on guys don't let this ruin your game.
EDIT Hey this is a Starcraft progaming forum. Do not discourage people from buying the game in here, what the hell?
This post just made me rage.
I'm greedy for not wanting to pay a significant amount of money (at least $150 for all 3 campaigns + more if I want cross realm play) for an unfinished game that developers have not even been showing signs of listening to what the people want?
Oh and this is a STARCRAFT programing forum (for now) not a STARCRAFT 2 progaming forum, as it kind of doesn't exist.
Yay for Blizzard run e-sports I guess
I'm only saying that being so concerned by the cost of the game is somehow greedy. But it's my opinon you can disagree i'm totally fine with it.
It's a matter of how much you love something and how much you are willing to pay for it. Some people would not pay 5$ for sc2 while i would pay 200$ and woulndt care. (of course i would find it expensive but i'd just drink less beer??)
Sadly this world is ran by profits and whatever you could do, it won't change.
WTF, just WTF. Dude... Im speechless. How is this greed, obviously u have no idea what greed is. Its like if Ferrari and some cheap, crappy but good looking chinese car would cost the same. Would you really spend your money on that peace of junk instead of ferrari? Starcraft 2 feels loose, not finished and just massed up to get fast money type game. All they do is talk, talk, talk, promote, talk, talk, hype people with all their events, talk and once again talk. They dont actually do anything.
They don't do anything? Sc2 is some kind of cheap game made for profits??
Well, you are truly mistaken. Altho I believe there is some flaws atm with bnet2.0. This game is gonna be huge and I have 100% faith Blizzard wont let us down since they never did in the past.
I'm playing beta since the launch and im really hooked to it, It's an awesome game and I really don't give a ** if they are making plenty of money out of it.
You know what will happen? People will hack the game and play an illegal version of it claiming: 'Im not paying a cent to those greedy bastards'. They will turn around and call their friends: 'man sc2 is so fun, you should dl the torrent!'
This is what i call greed.
how pathetic.
The fact is though that this was how starcraft was sold to me and many others alike on this forum. Many of us didn't go to the store and think hmm wow starcraft that sounds interesting. I'll put down 20 bucks for that game. No what we did was we went over to a friend's house, and they said, "I've got this great game for you to check out. It's called starcraft and I can give it to you for free." Then what happened was that you took the game home and tried it out for yourself. Eventually this lead to a sale. Moments like this are not going to be possible for starcraft any more without the possibility of LAN play. With this new Bnet always connected policy blizzard games are going to turn out exactly like Activision. SHORT LIVED. If you follow activision's releases you'll know that they are a company that values quantity over quality. They've put out what is it 25 guitar hero games and not one of them can I name. Whereas blizzard doesn't do that. They have only a handful of titles released, but they are TRULY GOOD TITLES. I'll take my one game every 10 years if this game is one that I can play for years to come and Activision doesn't understand that this was one of the philosphies of blizzard that made it so popular. No I suspect activision only merged with blizzard to gain its good name in order to further its role in dominating the video game development scene.
On July 02 2010 22:40 mikado wrote: You've paid for it all along, it wasn't free anyway.
Your explanation is that it has been free so far because they were being nice to you as a company? And you were grateful for that. That is an unhealthy and unrealistic view of things if you ask me
The availability of custom maps/map kits are all factored into the cost of the product you're buying, in economic terms, that happens to be Starcraft in this case. So you've paid for it all along, the price was just factored in to the final sale price up until now. What they're proposing now is an extra cost for the same service. The product value is less for you as a gamer then what it was before per dollar, how can that ever be good for you? So it's not 'i want everything for free', it's 'i want same or more product value for my money'. That's what competitiveness in market is all about, that's what drives capitalism.
Nobody is removing the ability to make free maps, I don't see what you're on about.
That's probably because you didn't read my quoted post, you know, the big wall of text.
blah.... this makes me want to be a business exec and reform businesses to promote more customer rewarding strategies, and therefore longer term customer following. Srsly, i honestly think that companies that foster pure customer dedication could easily reduce such issues as piracy and probably help businesses stay afloat for much longer and reap greater rewards decades down the line. Case in point, im only buying sc2 for two reasons, 1) its blizzard, and ive been a rabid fanboy of them since warcraft 2, and 2) i actually have a decent paying job and will be able to afford this disgusting money-grubbing strategy. Its the same thing with another of my fav companies bioware. If its anything other than those two, theres a damn good chance im gonna pirate that shit just to rub it into the faces of these bloated, egotistical game companies. I know its not fair to the devs, but i honestly dont know how else to vent my frustration (tho the devs probably dont even see much of the profits anyways).
If you were a business exec you'd realize that content control and planned obsolescence is more profitable in the lifespan of an IP. Making the perfect game won't make nearly as much money as milking a decent game.
On July 03 2010 02:24 psion wrote: If you were a business exec you'd realize that content control and planned obsolescence is more profitable in the lifespan of an IP. Making the perfect game won't make nearly as much money as milking a decent game.
I think it's time capitalism starts to think about how to give back to the community, and the world at large. Otherwise I don't see a future for the global economy anyway.
On July 03 2010 02:24 psion wrote: If you were a business exec you'd realize that content control and planned obsolescence is more profitable in the lifespan of an IP. Making the perfect game won't make nearly as much money as milking a decent game.
I think it's time capitalism starts to think about how to give back to the community, and the world at large. Otherwise I don't see a future for the global economy anyway.
Well that is in the hands of the consumers. Do YOU intend to NOT buy Starcraft II if you are dissatisfied with their policy?
Personally I have a "black list" of several major companies (several oil companies, one electronics innovation giant, one soft drink company, ...) whose products I dont buy. Are you willing to make the same sacrifice?
On July 03 2010 02:24 psion wrote: If you were a business exec you'd realize that content control and planned obsolescence is more profitable in the lifespan of an IP. Making the perfect game won't make nearly as much money as milking a decent game.
I think it's time capitalism starts to think about how to give back to the community, and the world at large. Otherwise I don't see a future for the global economy anyway.
Well that is in the hands of the consumers. Do YOU intend to NOT buy Starcraft II if you are dissatisfied with their policy?
Personally I have a "black list" of several major companies (several oil companies, one electronics innovation giant, one soft drink company, ...) whose products I dont buy. Are you willing to make the same sacrifice?
Not much of a sacrifice when there are close substitutes for all of those.
wow, i didn't expect myself to actually read the whole thing but every part of it was such an eye-opener for me. I mean, I knew a little bit, but I didn't know all this.
the problem for us PC gamers is that it won't be of any use to us if we simply don't buy games. The CEOs are mostly complete morons who have no idea about the dynamics of the industry (the same thing is the case for music record labels) and they're simply not going to produce PC games anymore instead of trying to make something better ~~
I used to think things like "It'd be awesome to work for Blizzard". Now I just think "I'd never want my name mentioned in the same foul breath as Activision".
I feel so sorry for Blizzard.
Honestly, they're not enough to keep me from buying the game. But I'm sure many people would rather not buy (oh you know what i mean) because of Activision's decisions.
It's a bummer that Blizzard/Activision is moving in a direction that seems to focus more on milking money than providing a fun experience, since the history of Blizzard has been incredible games without constantly emptying your wallet to "have fun".
But I'm not worried, if another company realizes and "capitalizes" on what made Blizzard such a good developer, it won't be long before good games make a comeback.
I wouldn't blame "greed" towards Activision/Blizzards direction because all video games have a price tag (or an item shop, mechanism for revenue, etc.). All companies will be greedy, but when they lose track of the customer/community, then their downfall will follow.
On July 03 2010 02:24 psion wrote: If you were a business exec you'd realize that content control and planned obsolescence is more profitable in the lifespan of an IP. Making the perfect game won't make nearly as much money as milking a decent game.
I think it's time capitalism starts to think about how to give back to the community, and the world at large. Otherwise I don't see a future for the global economy anyway.
Well that is in the hands of the consumers. Do YOU intend to NOT buy Starcraft II if you are dissatisfied with their policy?
Personally I have a "black list" of several major companies (several oil companies, one electronics innovation giant, one soft drink company, ...) whose products I dont buy. Are you willing to make the same sacrifice?
Not much of a sacrifice when there are close substitutes for all of those.
Sure it is, when the closest gas station isnt one of that you "allow yourself to use" and when you have been an addict for "their Cola" for years and cant stand "the other brand". With the number of screw-ups of oil companies there is almost none left to use, but I am using my bike for as many trips as I can.
I doubt there is a "close substitute" for Starcraft, so that would be a big sacrifice. Personally I have waited for SC 2 for years as the one game I want to play. I will now "play it later", when there is a compilation of all three campaigns for 10€ or so. That minimizes the profit which they will make from me.
On July 03 2010 06:02 shawster wrote: what bugged me the most was the 1 wish thing.
online subscription for call of duty. REALLY? not making all your games bot/hacker free, not making something a better experience but subscription?
i think he's trolling us, im 50% convinced he's trolling.
I would say he is honest. He is there to make money, that's it. I'm not defending him, Kotick is an ass but at least he isn't hiding it.
That is the "beaty" of it from their perspective ... they can be as greedy and as bad as they want and still it will make millions due to Blizzards reputation and the addiction level and spinelessness of their customers.
Eh... some of these things aren't really legit concerns and some fueled by misinformation. Like the map marketplace... something like that is mostly there to allow somebody to put some money into making good mods. And you don't have to buy any of it if you don't want to. The way you wrote it out sounded like ALL maps will have to be payed for and there is some sort of fear of being nickeled and dimed for maps which is just silly since we have access to the map editor and there is little demand for more melee maps outside of the ladder pool.
And the WoW services like name changes. Before ANY of that was available there were many, many, many, many threads concerning things like race change, name change, and that people were willing to pay for it. I can see why some hate these features, because they feel these things should be free. Can't seem to find a word for that. What's a good word for someone expecting things to be free? Anyway, those features cost money to develop and part of the reason for the fee is that they don't want you using them (as one of the concerns for opening these features up, like realm transfers is people can abuse them if they were free, people jumping ship when their reputation sucks because they couldn't behave themselves). And before you say, why wouldn't Blizzard want money for using these features? Well some of these features have lengthy cooldowns so yeah.
And as far as the three expansions go... what's not to like about more expansions? The campaign still has the same number of missions as with SC1, so it's not like they split 1 product into 3 like MANY people continue to make it out to be. If you look at their single player, they didn't just throw together 30 missions and called it a day. They have all this RPG bullshit in there too. So from a design standpoint you can see why they did it.
Then the LAN issue... OK, LAN is cool, but your reason for it basically is so you can pirate it or "try it out" is the exact reason why there is no LAN. You just prove Blizzard right for taking it out. Tournament concerns for LAN is more legit.
As for EVERYTHING else, it disturbs me greatly and I fear for the future of Blizzard. Whoever said that Activizard is like a junky who wants to make a quick buck got it right. Wow... Kotick makes EA look like a good company. I haven't bought a game with "EA" slapped on the packaging in years. If they can treat Infinity Ward that way what can we say about Blizzard?
On July 03 2010 14:48 Ownos wrote: And the WoW services like name changes. Before ANY of that was available there were many, many, many, many threads concerning things like race change, name change, and that people were willing to pay for it. I can see why some hate these features, because they feel these things should be free. Can't seem to find a word for that. What's a good word for someone expecting things to be free?
Entitled. And you're exactly right. There's far too much of that mentality permeating the community.
I especially enjoyed a quote from that youtube video... he was talking about production values in games and how theyre on the rise and this will "allow us to unfold stories, develop characters.."
GOOD LORD MAN! You obviously know absolutely jack-shit-nothing about the history of your industry. There are SO many incredible stories from games dating all the way back to the 80s, and some tiny production values too! I'd start naming games but there are so many examples I just don't know where to start... This man is a complete idiot.
I'm a bit confused about something in the last part... Tippl believes that spending as little money as possible on employee care will create great games? What possible motivation are these people going to have to make better and better games if they get treated like trash all the same?
I can't stand the way Activision-Blizzard is evolving. I asked them to delete my Battle.net account and I'll just stick to playing EVE and watching Koreans play Starcraft (and Europeans if they can keep up with the Koreans :p).
On July 07 2010 15:27 CynanMachae wrote: Wow great OP, I missed that post before.
Reading all of this really got me scared...
I missed that post too. Reading all this makes me scared for the future of SC2, I guess the real-id thing isn't a joke. If they keep following that path, I think I'll just stick to sc2 : WoL and boycott the expansions.
Now I see what the problem is with all the latest privacy/integration issues with bnet. This Kotick guy clearly thinks he understands my generation more than he really does. It's like the people in the news about a year ago when everyone thought twitter was going to revolutionize the whole world. It didn't. People who didn't grow up with the internet just can't understand the younger generation. They think more is better, especially more social integration. What they don't seem to understand is that my generation isn't looking for social integration but for social optimization. We've already integrated enough. I don't need to have all of my social spheres connected. I just need the tools I use to connect with each of those spheres to work optimally. I don't need bnet to hook up with facebook. I need bnet to connect me with other people on bnet and have it do that well. I can do the integration part if and when I choose to.
But seriously, Kotick sounds like the Michael Eisner of the gaming industry. Totally out of touch with what the market really wants and just there to make a quick buck off of successful franchises.
On June 21 2010 00:07 Ivo wrote: There is a specific reason behind their decision to make it easier than ever for hackers to hack, botters to bot, and for the implementation of features that have eroded the once close-knit community down to a nub. You think all these gear ninjas and nasty, anti-social people are so prevalent just because of random happenstance? I dare say that they are anything but random, but that these decisions were made to keep the customer playing, and paying longer.
Did you register just to post the most unlikely conspiracy theory of all time? Never mind, the whole thread is like a Michael Moore documentary so it fits right in.
Unlikely my ass. This company, by definition, has done nothing but extract wealth from capital throughout their entire 30 year history. This is their culture and their motto. They produce nothing.
What I am suggesting is no more outlandish than a global manufacturer "exploiting" 3rd world labor conditions, a pornographer hosting illegal material in a non-extradition country, or an auto mechanic who feels entitled to create a bit of additional business for himself. In this case, it's not a question of legality, but of ethics. But far be it from me to expect a fanboy, or in this case perhaps a loyal employee, to understand the difference.
This is actually the first time I had read this article, after hearing Kotick's name a few times.
The quotes from Kotick are crazy. He said that his job was to take the fun out of video games? And that they keep their employees focused on pessimism, skepticism, and on the economic turmoil around?
I never liked Kotick from the start. He sealed the deal when he explained why he canned a bunch of franchises and games (specifically Ghostbusters and Brutal Legends):
With respect to the franchises that don’t have the potential to be exploited every year across every platform, with clear sequel potential that can meet our objectives of, over time, becoming $100 million-plus franchises, that’s a strategy that has worked very well for us
The OP was very well written and researched. It further proves how evil and destructive Kotick is to Blizzard and the overall gaming community. I think he's easily gaming's most hated man, yet he commands gaming's most powerful publishing company.
The only solace that can be had is if karma truly exists. Sooner or later things will crumble beneath him and his (literal) empire will shatter. I can only hope Blizzard can escape before it's too late.
This guy is what is wrong with gaming now a days. Thank god for valve and any non corrupt developer. Blizzard and ESPECIALLY ACTIVISION can eat shit in my opinion because there ruining gaming. CoD and Guitar Hero are BUTCHED franchises because of how fucking money hungry these people are. Its disgusting
I think this is the begining of a massive privacy scam. They are selling us now instead of the game. I am all against it. Both of my accounts will be cancled if they make this manditory ingame instead of optional. I can live iwth not posting on the forums. But I am concered that there are mods that bypass privacy settitings to steal your real id ( and by proxy your email) they need to fix this shortly or they will loose more then just customers.
to require us to effectivly sign/aprove the eula in order to close are accounts can't be legal as well. If necessary I'll customer server or billing to avoid that. OR just stop payment on the account as fraud.
For everyone in the states that feel there rights are being infringed on I suggest going to the Better Business Bureau on top of posting at major media sites. Also it would be interesting to hear from our Lawyers on some of this. their views and opinions would be interesting.
Most of the 20 years, that I have provided for growth at Activision, we were content to make products that are attractive to the 16-35 year old guy who has gotten no date for Saturday night.
But seriously, Kotick sounds like the Michael Eisner of the gaming industry. Totally out of touch with what the market really wants and just there to make a quick buck off of successful franchises.
I disagree, I think he knows what the market wants, however he's not in the business of making a quick buck, he's after completely raping your valet.
There's lots of game companies after a quick buck, they release their games buggy and unfinished and hope they can cash in before all the scathing reviews come in. However Kotick is the opposite. He output games with huge production values, but instead of selling his games for a mere $50 he wants hook you on the core game and then keep churning out "value added" services until you've paid $500.
It's a much more long term game then most game publishers play, classically just published the game and if you made more money selling it then you paid making it you were golden, now Activision are hoping to milk the same game for 10 years.
And as he said himself, it's working, while he and Activision have a horrendously bad reputation they still have people paying $500 for Guitar Hero.
I'm not sure why we're all surprised. He's making video games like every other industry made to make money. Why does McDonald's make a lot of money? It's not by treating it's employees well and providing quality food at a good price, I'll tell you that much.
This is the kind of consumer market we've created for ourselves. Activision is hiring people who are used to selling high fructose corn syrup to us. HFCS is like guaranteed obesity guys, and these people know it. Yet they sell more and more every year and come up with more ways to sell it. Why? Because it makes money.
They are counting on this blowing over eventually. Like OP said, they stand to gain way, way more than they will realistically lose (read:l4d2 lolcott). I say we continue letting them know how bs this is, but I doubt they're gonna do anything about it unless they think it will actually hurt their pockets. They don't care about their image or anything else unless it pertains to money. They're absolutely willing to let everyone hate them as long as they are making a profit.
It's incredibly depressing, but really par for the course.
On July 08 2010 19:09 Cpt.Nasty wrote: I'm not sure why we're all surprised. He's making video games like every other industry made to make money. Why does McDonald's make a lot of money? It's not by treating it's employees well and providing quality food at a good price, I'll tell you that much.
This is the kind of consumer market we've created for ourselves. Activision is hiring people who are used to selling high fructose corn syrup to us. HFCS is like guaranteed obesity guys, and these people know it. Yet they sell more and more every year and come up with more ways to sell it. Why? Because it makes money.
They are counting on this blowing over eventually. Like OP said, they stand to gain way, way more than they will realistically lose (read:l4d2 lolcott). I say we continue letting them know how bs this is, but I doubt they're gonna do anything about it unless they think it will actually hurt their pockets. They don't care about their image or anything else unless it pertains to money. They're absolutely willing to let everyone hate them as long as they are making a profit.
It's incredibly depressing, but really par for the course.
I have to agree with this. Though it sucks, it's what capitalism is about and will continue to be about. Just look at EA, once the money started dripping in instead of flowing they had to change their culture and ideas to become competitive again.
I can't say I'm surprised... I knew when Blizz sold out to Activision we'd inevitably deal with a total shit-storm for it... I can't believe Morhaime doesn't see it... The second he had to report to someone with Activision, despite Blizzard supposedly maintaining its own independance, it should have occurred to him that he messed up...
My prediction is this: Blizzard Employee's will put out Wings of Liberty and Heart of the Swarm both, before realizing Activision is going to screw them over, as Activision has inevitably done to everyone brought into their fold. They will finish Legacy of the Void just because this series is something they've been working on for ages, and it's important to them. They will then finally have their backs broken by Activision and go the way of Infinity Ward, most likely with the Blizzard name stripped from them and owned by Activision. Activision, in the years to follow, will destroy the Blizzard name and drive themselves, possibly just in that one branch, or as a whole, into the ground. The Blizzard team will take their third name, (The first being Silicone & Synapse,) and continue to make ground-breaking games for true gamers and casual gamers alike. Blizzard, and Morhaime, will then rub dog-shit in Kotick's face and prove, once and for all, that Karma, when you build up enough Bad Karma, is a bitch, and rise, once again, to multi-billion dollar status..... And then sign with EA... *Sigh*
OMG, I can't believe I read all that. I canNOT believe that. What is this country coming to?? Makes me want to cancel my Warcraft subscription ASAP.
I feel bad for those who have played Warcraft for 5+ years, and feel they must leave because of this whole RealID garbage. It's going to hurt for me just after 8 months. :o(
I'd be nice if like a dozen people at Blizzcon went and threw their shoes at him together. Even better if you could get a whole room to do it simultaneously, but still..
Call me an apologist, but I've always believed that truth is a three edged sword (bonus points if you get the reference).
How many excerpts were pulled from shareholder meetings where things had to be explained in a way people understood, like making B.Net2 "Like XBox Live", or displaying a mature corporate culture that "takes the fun out of making video games"? I always love how so many things are pulled together and slanted to paint a portrait to fuel whatever argument you want to make.
Call of Duty subscription service? Hell, if they were more regular with the DLC with a more regular map rotation and additional features it's not a bad idea. Monetizing B.Net 2? They've said they're going to do that for years.
All I'm saying is don't just take everything here at face value. Do some research, think, and -then- make an informed opinion.
On May 30 2010 06:04 Vynakros wrote: Amagad, just read through it... And at first I thought the merger was going to be positive for us end users...
EDIT: Because I was such a hardcore Blizz games fan, this day feels like a familiar friend died. And now he returns as a zombie...
yeah, this most of all. even though i've experienced the change first-hand, there's a strong temptation to believe in the illusion that blizzard is immune to all the bullshit that plagues everything else. unfortunately it's apparent blizzard isn't immune at all
I've read some of the comments, and unsurprisingly, there seems to be a lot of indoctrinated brainwashed tools who think that piracy is stealing and such. Let me clear this up for you people with logic (something many people seem to lack).
Now, first of all, those statistics that state how many pirates there are or how much something was pirated? Made up on the spot. There is NO simple or accurate way to know how many people are pirates or know how many people pirated something because it's as if they never bought the product! In addition, there's far too many websites and torrents to even come close to having accurate statistics, so they have to make the numbers up to seem worse than they really are. What's sad is, some people actually believe them (I'd expect no less from brainwashed tools, though). Also, no matter how much DRM someone puts into their products, it isn't going to stop piracy. Sorry, you're only hurting your customers.
Second of all, piracy is NOT stealing. I read a comment somewhere here that compared pirating something to stealing an apple. This is absolutely idiotic because when you steal an apple, the owner NO LONGER HAS IT. That's what stealing is. When you take something, and it's no longer there for someone else. When you pirate something, you're basically making a copy, and there will always be more for other people! These products are in an INFINITE quantity. Piracy isn't stealing, despite what some brainwashed tools would have you believe.
Now, you could argue that when someone pirates something, they are 'stealing' the artists potential profits. This is simply idiotic and incorrect for a number of reasons. For one, many pirates likely never have any intention of buying something if they can't pirate, maybe because they don't have the money, or because the company is similar to Blizzard and treats their customers like idiots who throw money at them mindlessly. Second of all, if 'stealing' someones potential profits was illegal, this would have some very dire consequences such as the fact that competition in general would become illegal! Other businesses would be 'stealing' away your 'potential profits'. Not to mention the fact that warning people about bad/poorly made products would also be illegal because it could 'steal' away a businesses potential profits.
Piracy also has some positive effects, such as the fact that when someone pirates something and they like the product, they will likely spread the word about it, which means free advertising via word of mouth. Also, they might tell some of their non-pirate friends to buy it, or maybe even donate to the author themselves. Also, when someone pirates something, they save money for themselves so they can buy more important things (food, water, and shelter).
Morally, you might say piracy is wrong. However, your morals are not absolute and do not apply to everyone. So that's really just an opinion. While I do think an artist should get compensated for their efforts if they made a product that the pirate likes, it's no fault of the pirate if they don't. Pirates are merely symptoms of an illogical capitalistic society that utilizes a vastly inefficient artificial currency which promotes greed, selfishness, corruption, and often even promotes sacrificing the environment or the lives of living beings in order to acquire more of this worthless currency.
Think outside of the box that society has enclosed your mind in.
On July 31 2010 22:22 woboola wrote: I've read some of the comments, and unsurprisingly, there seems to be a lot of indoctrinated brainwashed tools who think that piracy is stealing and such. Let me clear this up for you people with logic (something many people seem to lack).
Now, first of all, those statistics that state how many pirates there are or how much something was pirated? Made up on the spot. There is NO simple or accurate way to know how many people are pirates or know how many people pirated something because it's as if they never bought the product! In addition, there's far too many websites and torrents to even come close to having accurate statistics, so they have to make the numbers up to seem worse than they really are. What's sad is, some people actually believe them (I'd expect no less from brainwashed tools, though). Also, no matter how much DRM someone puts into their products, it isn't going to stop piracy. Sorry, you're only hurting your customers.
Second of all, piracy is NOT stealing. I read a comment somewhere here that compared pirating something to stealing an apple. This is absolutely idiotic because when you steal an apple, the owner NO LONGER HAS IT. That's what stealing is. When you take something, and it's no longer there for someone else. When you pirate something, you're basically making a copy, and there will always be more for other people! These products are in an INFINITE quantity. Piracy isn't stealing, despite what some brainwashed tools would have you believe.
Now, you could argue that when someone pirates something, they are 'stealing' the artists potential profits. This is simply idiotic and incorrect for a number of reasons. For one, many pirates likely never have any intention of buying something if they can't pirate, maybe because they don't have the money, or because the company is similar to Blizzard and treats their customers like idiots who throw money at them mindlessly. Second of all, if 'stealing' someones potential profits was illegal, this would have some very dire consequences such as the fact that competition in general would become illegal! Other businesses would be 'stealing' away your 'potential profits'. Not to mention the fact that warning people about bad/poorly made products would also be illegal because it could 'steal' away a businesses potential profits.
Piracy also has some positive effects, such as the fact that when someone pirates something and they like the product, they will likely spread the word about it, which means free advertising via word of mouth. Also, they might tell some of their non-pirate friends to buy it, or maybe even donate to the author themselves. Also, when someone pirates something, they save money for themselves so they can buy more important things (food, water, and shelter).
Morally, you might say piracy is wrong. However, your morals are not absolute and do not apply to everyone. So that's really just an opinion. While I do think an artist should get compensated for their efforts if they made a product that the pirate likes, it's no fault of the pirate if they don't. Pirates are merely symptoms of an illogical capitalistic society that utilizes a vastly inefficient artificial currency which promotes greed, selfishness, corruption, and often even promotes sacrificing the environment or the lives of living beings in order to acquire more of this worthless currency.
Think outside of the box that society has enclosed your mind in.
Piracy is stealing, if you think it isn't then you should introduce yourself to a dictionary.
On July 31 2010 22:22 woboola wrote: I've read some of the comments, and unsurprisingly, there seems to be a lot of indoctrinated brainwashed tools who think that piracy is stealing and such. Let me clear this up for you people with logic (something many people seem to lack).
Now, first of all, those statistics that state how many pirates there are or how much something was pirated? Made up on the spot. There is NO simple or accurate way to know how many people are pirates or know how many people pirated something because it's as if they never bought the product! In addition, there's far too many websites and torrents to even come close to having accurate statistics, so they have to make the numbers up to seem worse than they really are. What's sad is, some people actually believe them (I'd expect no less from brainwashed tools, though). Also, no matter how much DRM someone puts into their products, it isn't going to stop piracy. Sorry, you're only hurting your customers.
Second of all, piracy is NOT stealing. I read a comment somewhere here that compared pirating something to stealing an apple. This is absolutely idiotic because when you steal an apple, the owner NO LONGER HAS IT. That's what stealing is. When you take something, and it's no longer there for someone else. When you pirate something, you're basically making a copy, and there will always be more for other people! These products are in an INFINITE quantity. Piracy isn't stealing, despite what some brainwashed tools would have you believe.
Now, you could argue that when someone pirates something, they are 'stealing' the artists potential profits. This is simply idiotic and incorrect for a number of reasons. For one, many pirates likely never have any intention of buying something if they can't pirate, maybe because they don't have the money, or because the company is similar to Blizzard and treats their customers like idiots who throw money at them mindlessly. Second of all, if 'stealing' someones potential profits was illegal, this would have some very dire consequences such as the fact that competition in general would become illegal! Other businesses would be 'stealing' away your 'potential profits'. Not to mention the fact that warning people about bad/poorly made products would also be illegal because it could 'steal' away a businesses potential profits.
Piracy also has some positive effects, such as the fact that when someone pirates something and they like the product, they will likely spread the word about it, which means free advertising via word of mouth. Also, they might tell some of their non-pirate friends to buy it, or maybe even donate to the author themselves. Also, when someone pirates something, they save money for themselves so they can buy more important things (food, water, and shelter).
Morally, you might say piracy is wrong. However, your morals are not absolute and do not apply to everyone. So that's really just an opinion. While I do think an artist should get compensated for their efforts if they made a product that the pirate likes, it's no fault of the pirate if they don't. Pirates are merely symptoms of an illogical capitalistic society that utilizes a vastly inefficient artificial currency which promotes greed, selfishness, corruption, and often even promotes sacrificing the environment or the lives of living beings in order to acquire more of this worthless currency.
Think outside of the box that society has enclosed your mind in.
Piracy is stealing, if you think it isn't then you should introduce yourself to a dictionary.
On July 31 2010 22:57 Tergeron wrote: Piracy is stealing, if you think it isn't then you should introduce yourself to a dictionary.
I can see you made absolutely zero effort to read my post, which to me is unsurprising. What exactly are pirates stealing? When you steal something, it's gone from the original owner. When you pirate something, you've made a copy, and no one loses anything.
On August 01 2010 22:58 woboola wrote: When you steal something, it's gone from the original owner. When you pirate something, you've made a copy, and no one loses anything.
You did just not say that, jesus. You are not paying for the product how does that seem like no one is losing anything?
Piracy is more like a little kid sneaking into a movie in the cinema. Think 'Cinema Paradiso'. Its fine when people who don't have the money do it but it's a problem if people who can afford to pay start doing it. They want to scare most people enough to stop it becoming a problem and they'll never stop certain people anyway.
I really hate this activision bollocks. I was always wondering why blizzard were doing things they couldn't really explain properly or had a stupid reason for it.
Second of all, piracy is NOT stealing. I read a comment somewhere here that compared pirating something to stealing an apple. This is absolutely idiotic because when you steal an apple, the owner NO LONGER HAS IT. That's what stealing is. When you take something, and it's no longer there for someone else. When you pirate something, you're basically making a copy, and there will always be more for other people! These products are in an INFINITE quantity. Piracy isn't stealing, despite what some brainwashed tools would have you believe.
If this is what you have to tell your 5 yr old so that he doesn't think his father is an immoral prick who expects to get the fruits of other peoples' labor without giving them anything in return, the go big.
But reality tempts me to post this: If you call a taxi, you enter into a verbal contract. (not making this up, its the law). This contract for services states: you give me a ride, and I pay you for it. I agree to pay what you charge for this service. If I do not agree, I forfeit my opportunity to partake in said transaction and I exit the cab without being transported anywhere.
The cab driver still owns the cab, and still can give an infinite number of people rides. But if you take a ride without paying him, you STOLE HIS TIME. You stole is RESOURCES. You RENEGED ON A CONTRACT, and simply, you owe him money.
It is theft. It may not adhere to your definition of "stealing", but guess what? My definition of stealing is the same as the court's definition of stealing and we disagree with you.
Piracy is theft, because the company that made the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY owns it, and doesn't sell it to anyone, they license you to use it. Its a contract for a service. You pay to use their intellectual property (software). If you use it and don't pay them, you have stolen from them.
On August 01 2010 23:33 JamesLame wrote: You did just not say that, jesus. You are not paying for the product how does that seem like no one is losing anything?
Uh, how does copying something make someone lose something? What exactly are they losing? I don't understand, sorry. What is being taken away from them that they had before? I'm trying to phrase this as clearly as possible, as brainwashed tools seem to be hard to communicate with.
On August 02 2010 01:27 Crushgroove wrote: If this is what you have to tell your 5 yr old so that he doesn't think his father is an immoral prick who expects to get the fruits of other peoples' labor without giving them anything in return, the go big.
But reality tempts me to post this: If you call a taxi, you enter into a verbal contract. (not making this up, its the law). This contract for services states: you give me a ride, and I pay you for it. I agree to pay what you charge for this service. If I do not agree, I forfeit my opportunity to partake in said transaction and I exit the cab without being transported anywhere.
The cab driver still owns the cab, and still can give an infinite number of people rides. But if you take a ride without paying him, you STOLE HIS TIME. You stole is RESOURCES. You RENEGED ON A CONTRACT, and simply, you owe him money.
It is theft. It may not adhere to your definition of "stealing", but guess what? My definition of stealing is the same as the court's definition of stealing and we disagree with you.
Piracy is theft, because the company that made the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY owns it, and doesn't sell it to anyone, they license you to use it. Its a contract for a service. You pay to use their intellectual property (software). If you use it and don't pay them, you have stolen from them.
Its the law. Stop being silly.
It's not stealing. There is a specific term for it: piracy. Piracy is illegal, yes. I can also see that you made no attempt to read my original post, otherwise you'd already see how I logically justified piracy and that making an attempt to apprehend people for 'stealing' someones 'potential profits' is simply idiotic, illogical, and inefficient.
Your taxi example is incorrect, as there is a limit to the number of rides he can give, due to the fact that the taxi needs to acquire energy in some way in order to run, usually by using gas. When you pirate something, you're just copying something, and taking nothing from anyone (how many times do I have to repeat this?)
Oh, and, just because something is against the law, that does not make it instantly wrong or immoral. Also... I would never have a child, as I do not want to contribute to the survival of the human race in the first place.
Second of all, piracy is NOT stealing. I read a comment somewhere here that compared pirating something to stealing an apple. This is absolutely idiotic because when you steal an apple, the owner NO LONGER HAS IT. That's what stealing is. When you take something, and it's no longer there for someone else. When you pirate something, you're basically making a copy, and there will always be more for other people! These products are in an INFINITE quantity. Piracy isn't stealing, despite what some brainwashed tools would have you believe.
If this is what you have to tell your 5 yr old so that he doesn't think his father is an immoral prick who expects to get the fruits of other peoples' labor without giving them anything in return, the go big.
But reality tempts me to post this: If you call a taxi, you enter into a verbal contract. (not making this up, its the law). This contract for services states: you give me a ride, and I pay you for it. I agree to pay what you charge for this service. If I do not agree, I forfeit my opportunity to partake in said transaction and I exit the cab without being transported anywhere.
The cab driver still owns the cab, and still can give an infinite number of people rides. But if you take a ride without paying him, you STOLE HIS TIME. You stole is RESOURCES. You RENEGED ON A CONTRACT, and simply, you owe him money.
It is theft. It may not adhere to your definition of "stealing", but guess what? My definition of stealing is the same as the court's definition of stealing and we disagree with you.
Piracy is theft, because the company that made the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY owns it, and doesn't sell it to anyone, they license you to use it. Its a contract for a service. You pay to use their intellectual property (software). If you use it and don't pay them, you have stolen from them.
Its the law. Stop being silly.
no, its more like i was going to take a walk but my friend asked me if i want to share a cab... since i wasnt going to take a cab anyway (cuz i cant afford it or it smells like shit) i might aswell take a free ride
On July 31 2010 22:57 Tergeron wrote: Piracy is stealing, if you think it isn't then you should introduce yourself to a dictionary.
Piracy is not like stealing, its more like sneaking on the bus.
Both are getting value from something which others have payed for, without doing so yourself. Very simple.
piracy is really vague these days. you can make a mod for an existing program and get slapped with "piracy" lawsuits.
these so called "victims" of piracy often engage in "piracy" themselves. we often hear studios have arguments with their publishers and the bigger player often use lawsuits to take ownership of games from their creators.
On July 31 2010 22:57 Tergeron wrote: Piracy is stealing, if you think it isn't then you should introduce yourself to a dictionary.
Piracy is not like stealing, its more like sneaking on the bus.
Both are getting value from something which others have payed for, without doing so yourself. Very simple.
When you pirate something you take the intellectual property of the company that made the product, which by definition is stealing. I really don't know why you guys are arguing about this...
On July 31 2010 22:57 Tergeron wrote: Piracy is stealing, if you think it isn't then you should introduce yourself to a dictionary.
Piracy is not like stealing, its more like sneaking on the bus.
Both are getting value from something which others have payed for, without doing so yourself. Very simple.
When you pirate something you take the intellectual property of the company that made the product, which by definition is stealing. I really don't know why you guys are arguing about this...
how do you take something away which has no physical appearance in the real world? the wikipedia definition of stealing (theft) in english law:
"A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". (Section 1)
Do you really think that applies to pirates? They can't permanently deprive someone of something with elecronical data. when you download SC2 on the internet that doesn#t mean that there will be 1 copy removed from the shelves in stores. There's a reason it's called "piracy" after all, and not just "internet theft" or something like that.
On August 02 2010 11:44 0neder wrote: Taking something without paying for it is stealing. Screw your logic debate skills. Get real.
Okay? What is being 'taken' when someone pirates something? No one is being deprived of anything. Free your mind from the box that society has enclosed it in, it'll do you and everyone around you a lot of good in the long run.
On August 02 2010 12:24 ShaperofDreams wrote: By pirating something you decrease the desire of the maker to improve it because he doesn't make as much money as he would if pirating didn't exist.
If you could pirate medicine then there would be much less money in medical research, and therefore less medical research,
How so? For one, the developer can't ever know if you pirated it because there is no simple or accurate way to determine how many people pirated something, due to the sheer amount of torrents and torrent websites, among other variables. Second of all, you can't logically count each time someone pirates something as a lost sale, because you have no idea if they were going to buy it or not had they been unable to pirate it (and many of them likely weren't going to buy it). Are you against competition in business too? Those other businesses could take away from your potential profits, thereby decreasing your desire to make and/or sell products. Are you also against people informing other people of bad/poorly made products or businesses? That could take away from someones potential profits, thereby decreasing their desire to make and/or sell products. This is the fault of a capitalistic society, pirates are but symptoms of it. Your argument makes no logical sense.
Also, you did not just say that you wouldn't pirate medicine, did you? That's fucking selfish. There's people all over the world who are dying and sick because they can't get their hands on simple medicines (either because of a lack of it in their countries, or because they have no money). If you wouldn't help them out if you had the power to somehow copy medicine without taking the original copy, you're far more idiotic and selfish than I first suspected.
On August 02 2010 06:07 woboola wrote: I'm trying to phrase this as clearly as possible, as brainwashed tools seem to be hard to communicate with.
On August 02 2010 20:38 woboola wrote: you're far more idiotic and selfish than I first suspected.
Here's a tip: you may want to cut back on the insults when you've got 4 posts.
There's already been several threads discussing piracy, so I don't see why it's necessary to turn this thread into yet another such debate. Nevertheless, I want to make a comment as well...
What you call it really doesn't matter. While copying a movie file certainly is not the same as for example taking a DVD containing the same movie from your neighbour, it's still considered a crime by most people.
Work has gone into the product. Just because it's easy to reproduce doesn't mean you should be allowed to. And certainly very few would think you should be allowed to profit from that reproduction.
On August 02 2010 21:58 ParasitJonte wrote: Here's a tip: you may want to cut back on the insults when you've got 4 posts.
There's already been several threads discussing piracy, so I don't see why it's necessary to turn this thread into yet another such debate. Nevertheless, I want to make a comment as well...
What you call it really doesn't matter. While copying a movie file certainly is not the same as for example taking a DVD containing the same movie from your neighbour, it's still considered a crime by most people.
Work has gone into the product. Just because it's easy to reproduce doesn't mean you should be allowed to. And certainly very few would think you should be allowed to profit from that reproduction.
It's the same with patents.
I'm sorry, but when someone behaves like a brainwashed tool who believes everything they are told, not because of logic, but because the person giving them the information is an authority figure, I'm going to call them out on it. How I express my point matters not, as long as there is a point to my argument, that is all that matters. It's idiotic not to see past insults when there is an argument present. They are free to do the same as far as I'm concerned. Post count matters little, as well.
Also, just because something is illegal, that doesn't mean it's wrong (again). Work may have gone into the product, but the product is in an infinite quantity that never runs out. Not to mention that, logically, there's nothing wrong with piracy in the first place. The true enemy is the illogical and inefficient capitalistic society, as pirates are merely symptoms of it. I'm not going to keep reposting what I've already said, so I'll just quote my first post (which it seems nobody actually read, or they read it and disregarded it entirely to protect their brainwashed tool mindsets).
On July 31 2010 22:22 woboola wrote: I've read some of the comments, and unsurprisingly, there seems to be a lot of indoctrinated brainwashed tools who think that piracy is stealing and such. Let me clear this up for you people with logic (something many people seem to lack).
Now, first of all, those statistics that state how many pirates there are or how much something was pirated? Made up on the spot. There is NO simple or accurate way to know how many people are pirates or know how many people pirated something because it's as if they never bought the product! In addition, there's far too many websites and torrents to even come close to having accurate statistics, so they have to make the numbers up to seem worse than they really are. What's sad is, some people actually believe them (I'd expect no less from brainwashed tools, though). Also, no matter how much DRM someone puts into their products, it isn't going to stop piracy. Sorry, you're only hurting your customers.
Second of all, piracy is NOT stealing. I read a comment somewhere here that compared pirating something to stealing an apple. This is absolutely idiotic because when you steal an apple, the owner NO LONGER HAS IT. That's what stealing is. When you take something, and it's no longer there for someone else. When you pirate something, you're basically making a copy, and there will always be more for other people! These products are in an INFINITE quantity. Piracy isn't stealing, despite what some brainwashed tools would have you believe.
Now, you could argue that when someone pirates something, they are 'stealing' the artists potential profits. This is simply idiotic and incorrect for a number of reasons. For one, many pirates likely never have any intention of buying something if they can't pirate, maybe because they don't have the money, or because the company is similar to Blizzard and treats their customers like idiots who throw money at them mindlessly. Second of all, if 'stealing' someones potential profits was illegal, this would have some very dire consequences such as the fact that competition in general would become illegal! Other businesses would be 'stealing' away your 'potential profits'. Not to mention the fact that warning people about bad/poorly made products would also be illegal because it could 'steal' away a businesses potential profits.
Piracy also has some positive effects, such as the fact that when someone pirates something and they like the product, they will likely spread the word about it, which means free advertising via word of mouth. Also, they might tell some of their non-pirate friends to buy it, or maybe even donate to the author themselves. Also, when someone pirates something, they save money for themselves so they can buy more important things (food, water, and shelter).
Morally, you might say piracy is wrong. However, your morals are not absolute and do not apply to everyone. So that's really just an opinion. While I do think an artist should get compensated for their efforts if they made a product that the pirate likes, it's no fault of the pirate if they don't. Pirates are merely symptoms of an illogical capitalistic society that utilizes a vastly inefficient artificial currency which promotes greed, selfishness, corruption, and often even promotes sacrificing the environment or the lives of living beings in order to acquire more of this worthless currency.
Think outside of the box that society has enclosed your mind in.
On May 30 2010 10:50 Captain Peabody wrote: First, I'd like to commend you for taking the time to write your thoughts up in a clear and readable manner, do a reasonable amount of research, and not just flame Blizzard.
However, that being said, your post is not at all convincing.
While you make no explicit argument in your post, it's pretty obvious what thesis you are trying to support. If I had to put it into words, it would be that "Blizzard has been negatively affected by the merger with Activision. They are now greedy like Activision." However, this thesis is totally and completely unsupported by the evidence you provide.
First of all, if you want to show that Blizzard is greedier now than they were, you have to provide some point of contrast; in other words, to show that there is a significant difference between the way Blizzard acted before the merger, and the way they act now, you have to provide a picture of what they were like before the merger that contrasts with the way they are now. Now, certainly you can reasonably assume (at least in this case) that most people know Blizzard's reputation, and are able to provide these contrasts themselves...but this does weaken what you're trying to say. And I think you'd find, if you actually looked at what Blizzard was like before the merger, you'd find more commonalities than you think.
Besides that, though, the timeline you provide simply does not support your argument. 3/4ths of the things on the timeline are solely related to Activision and Bobby Kotick, which is great if you're trying to prove that Bobby Kotick is a jerk, but not so good if you're trying to prove that Blizzard are now greedy, uncaring bastards.
Him talking about wanting to mess with Blizzard is better, but still proves nothing, since most of the things he talks about simply haven't happened; which actually works directly against your thesis. There is no in-game advertising; there is pretty much no monetizing of Bnet whatsoever, and the services that Blizzard talks about in another quote are hardly unreasonable.
Oh, and there's the interview with the Activision guy where he talks about how Blizzard is going to operate pretty much as they have before now, and that they're going to be fairly independent. You seem to think the "fairly independent" is some kind of contradiction with the rest of the statement, but if you knew how Blizzard has operated in the past, you wouldn't be. For most of Blizzard's existence, they've been owned by some other corporation; these corporations have varied in the amount they left Blizzard alone and the amount they meddled with her, but they've always been interested in the bottom line, and they've always had some degree of oversight over her. In general, though, Blizzard has been "fairly independent" for quite a long time.
Most of the information you provide, then, is superfluous.
Let's talk, then, about the three or four actual relevant pieces of information you bring up about Blizzard's actions after the merger, information you arrange in such a fashion as to suggest that Blizzard is acting in a greedy or uncaring fashion, with the implication that this is due to Bobby Kotick and Activision: (1)WoW paid stuff. (2): Starcraft 2 being a Trilogy. (3): No LAN (4): Map Marketplace (5): Blizzcon ticket prices being raised (?) (6): Facebook integration.
Let's go through these one by one, shall we?
(1): WoW.
Okay...I'm going to be very clear with this. Adding paid stuff to WoW makes Blizzard money. Blizzard is a corporation, whose main purpose is to make money. These paid things are features, meaning they add some value if used. Features are good, even if they make money for the company who does them; they are especially good if the community wants them. They are only bad when they make money in such a fashion as to directly hurt the gameplay or the community. This is simply not the case here. Most of these features (such as paid character customization) came about largely at the behest of the community, are used widely by the community, and are generally enjoyed by them. In addition, none of them significantly affect gameplay. Remember: adding features is only a bad thing when it hurts the game or community in some way. Otherwise, it is a good thing. And if it's a feature that the community has asked for, it's a better thing.
Also, linking the use of paid features on WoW to Activision is highly questionable, considering the first of them actually was released a full year before the merger, in 2006.
However, one could, if one wished, link the recent "pet store" and "mount store" stuff to Activision, since it is more gameplay-related than the other features. However, they still do not affect gameplay, are totally cosmetic, and thus are VERY far away from the Kotick-style merchandising of games like Guitar Hero.
Thus, while this example may help you with the thesis that "Blizzard has been affected by the merger," it will not help you with your "Blizzard are greedy bastards" one.
(2): Starcraft 2 as a Trilogy.
I'm going to be honest here. I am utterly sick and tired of people bringing this up as an example of Blizzard being greedy. It is so utterly wrong-headed and has been proven so so many times in so many ways I hardly know where to start. First of all, the other games are expansions, like BW, and will be priced like it. Secondly, the decision was made based on Blizzard's quality standards and in order not to delay the game too much. Thirdly, Blizzard had always, from the beginning of development, planned to have two expansions (probably originally to make up for what they knew would be an extra-long development cycle). Fourthly, Blizzard is jamming more content into each of these games then in the whole of SC1. I don't know how hard it is to get through people's skulls that Blizzard made the decision for the good of the game and the community. If someone seriously wants to argue that this is an example of Blizzard being greedy, I would be happy to drench him in sources that prove otherwise. Until then, this should suffice.
(3): No LAN.
This is the best example you have. I could say that Blizzard made this decision because they thought it was for the best for the community and the game, but if you've already decided that they're greedy bastards, there's no reason you'd believe them anyway. And in any event, you could still use it as an example of Blizzard being arrogant and not listening to what the community wants. So I will concede this one example to you. Congrats.
(4): Map Marketplace.
The Map Marketplace is a great idea, frankly, and really, really good for the community. It provides one place where you can go to get custom maps, a big showroom for all the talented map-makers out there, and the fact that some (read: very, very few. Blizzard has said that only people who basically create their own game using the engine would get money) of the most talented map-makers out there will get money for doing the equivalent of making their own game using Blizzard's tools is great, and will provide the impetus for many great projects.
The fact that Blizzard is taking a percentage of the money involved is far from excessive, Kotick-style greed; all store sites take some amount of money from sellers in exchange for the notoriety and out-there-ness they're getting. And the fact that the map-makers will be using Blizzard's tools and Blizzard's engines only increases the fairness of the arrangement. And since we don't know how much Blizzard is going to take anyway (and I doubt it's even been decided yet) it's pretty much a moot point.
And the idea that Blizzard thought up this idea as a huge money-maker is somewhat absurd. Setting up and maintaining the system will cost a lot of time and money, and with the rules for "premium maps" that they've given us, I doubt they'll be making a lot of profit off of it. It's not anything near to selling cheap plastic guitars and drum sets.
So, again: adding a feature is not bad. Adding a feature with the intent of making money from that feature is also not bad, so long as it does not deleteriously affect the game or the community. In fact, it is good. The Map Marketplace is a great community tool, thought of with the good of the community in mind, that will also make Blizzard some amount of money. It does not support your thesis.
(6): Blizzcon tickets being raised, and paid DirectTV feed.
I'm not sure if this belongs in here. Putting on Blizzcon is profitable for the company, since it is basically a great deal of advertising that also makes them money. However, it still costs them, and especially the development team, a great deal of time and money to put on, and so to justify it, they basically have to make a fairly large profit off of it. In addition, it provides a great service to the community, is by all accounts a great show, and it's clear everyone at Blizzard is very committed to making it a great experience that is worth the time and money people spend in buying tickets and getting there.
To be honest, raising the ticket price by $25 is pretty minor. Maybe if it were in a list full of slam-dunks, it could work as an additional, minor example to confirm a trend. But as it is, the basic thing stands: Blizzard wants to make a profit off of Blizzcon. This is not a bad thing, since, again, it is a good feature that provides an excellent service to the community. Every year, they have rented bigger and bigger convention halls, trying to get as many people as they can in to answer the demand from the community. The fact that they raised the ticket prices could be for any number of reasons; but primarily, they were hosting more people that year in a larger hall with more extravagent gifts and presentations, including even Ozzy Ozbourne, who couldn't be cheap. So there is at least more content for the raised price. The DirectTV, is, again, a feature, in that it allows some of the millions of people who tried and failed to get a Blizzcon ticket to sort-of attend, anyway. It costs significantly less than the ticket, but allows people to get the content live. It is a feature that does not harm the community, adds a feature, and makes Blizzard money at the same time. It is a Good.
(6): Facebook integration.
I don't know how clear I need to be on this. It is a feature, which is convenient for some people, and hurts no one else. It probably took a developer five minutes to write the requisite code. It costs nothing.
If this is greed, then I'd sure like to see charity. Adding in stuff about Facebook privacy concerns, with the stupid, conspiracy-theory suggestion that Blizzard is only doing it so they can steal people's personal information does not help your case.
In conclusion, then, your evidence simply does not support your thesis. It does not support the "greedy bastard" conclusion, and does not show a significant link of this to Activision. You have selectively stuck various bits of "evidence" (most of which does not support your thesis) together in such a way as to form a narrative that supports what you had already concluded before you began looking for evidence. It is not convincing.
You also leave out a great deal of evidence that does not support your thesis: namely, the vast majority of Blizzard's actions over the past few years, the entire development cycle of SC2, etc.
For all these reasons, I am not convinced by your thesis in the least.
You have, however, convinced me that Bobby Kotick is evil. Congrats.
P.S: Note that even if you are otherwise unhappy about Blizzard's actions in regards to things like Chat Channels, that does not have much to do with the thesis. Blizzard's reasons for not putting in chat channels have nothing to do with Bobby Kotick; they do not increase profits in the least, they are not a monetization, etc. It's pretty clear that chat channels are a design decision, as said in dozens of interviews. It may be a design decision you don't agree with, it may be a design decision that shows that Blizzard doesn't understand or care about the community like they should...but the causal link between that and Activision is not really there. Unless someone wants to show me otherwise.
this. come on people, the real issues here are things like lan and chat channels, things that blizzard has given clear explanations for. Yes, corporate CEO's whose job is to make as much money as possible are going to sound money hungry... get over it. its not going away.
On August 03 2010 05:28 wizerd wrote: this. come on people, the real issues here are things like lan and chat channels, things that blizzard has given clear explanations for. Yes, corporate CEO's whose job is to make as much money as possible are going to sound money hungry... get over it. its not going away.
Pretty much. As long as we live in a capitalistic society, this will always be so. There's worse companies yet, like Microsoft and Comcast, but Activision and Blizzard are still pretty bad. It's not going to get better as long as people support the companies that very openly and obviously treat their customers as if they are nothing. It's that simple. Stop giving these people your money if you want them to change.
if you can obtain something that has a price tag, i.e, that is for sale by the owner, and then you obtain it in such a way that you don't pay for it, that is theft. piracy is theft. don't logic around it.
On August 03 2010 06:37 wizerd wrote: also, wth is this crap about piracy?
if you can obtain something that has a price tag, i.e, that is for sale by the owner, and then you obtain it in such a way that you don't pay for it, that is theft. piracy is theft. don't logic around it.
Oh, right. Silly me. Using logic. How idiotic of me! No, by definition it's not theft, and you didn't even read my post. When you steal from someone (theft), you're TAKING THAT OBJECT AWAY FROM THEM. THEY NO LONGER HAVE IT. When you pirate something, YOU'RE MAKING A COPY. NO ONE HAS LOST ANYTHING. THE PRODUCT THAT YOU'VE PIRATED IS IN AN INFINITE QUANTITY AND WILL NEVER RUN OUT OF COPIES. Nothing is being stolen, and even if piracy is illegal, there's nothing truly wrong with it. How many times do I have to address these issues?
Again (what is this, the third time?), you might say that they are 'stealing' the authors potential profits, but that's illogical because you have no idea if the pirate was going to buy the product if they were unable to pirate it (and I don't know many that would). It's also illogical because if impeding on someones potential profits was illegal, competition between businesses in general would be illegal (you'd be 'stealing potential profits' away from your competitors). Also, informing other people of bad/poorly made products would be illegal (you might take away their 'potential profits'!).
In short: When you pirate something, no one loses anything, the statistics that certain groups come up with in regards to the amount of piracy are completely made up (too difficult to accuracy track how many pirates there really are), it's illogical to state that if someone pirates something then that can be counted as a lost sale, and it's completely illogical and idiot to state that 'stealing potential profits' should be illegal.
Here I brought you guys something worthwhile to talk about. Enjoy.
Analyst: Activision Could Announce Subscription Plans For CoD, StarCraft II By Year's End
Activision's new software has been weak at retail and it's once-vital music game business is no longer performing -- but some $60 million in potential Modern Warfare DLC sales during its first fiscal quarter may point to online business as the publisher's best revenue gold mine. And that means subscriptions are coming up, says Wedbush analyst Michael Pachter.
"Activision could grow earnings meaningfully by monetizing Modern Warfare 2 online multiplayer," says Pachter. "We estimate that the number of hours spent playing MW2 online is roughly 4 billion combined on Xbox Live and PSN, suggesting a large revenue opportunity. We expect the company to announce plans to monetize online multiplayer content in MW, Black Ops, StarCraft II and other games before year-end."
Such a move could explode the company's share price; "investors attribute high value to recurring revenue," says Pachter. And the impact of the drama and instability surrounding the Call of Duty brand and the Infinity Ward studio seems to have passed, he adds -- "most of the negative news (including the Infinity Ward departures) is behind the company," he notes.
Late last week came predictions from another analyst, Janco Partners' Mike Hickey, that Activision could soon try out a subscription model for Modern Warfare in China -- and in so doing, create $50-$100 million in first-year sales for Chinese online partner Netease.
Activision has never directly stated plans for a subscription service for the game in either China or the West, but the company's stance on pursuing online monetization options has always been forthright; CEO Bobby Kotick has estimated 70 percent of the company's operating profit comes from "non-console-based video games."
On August 03 2010 06:37 wizerd wrote: also, wth is this crap about piracy?
if you can obtain something that has a price tag, i.e, that is for sale by the owner, and then you obtain it in such a way that you don't pay for it, that is theft. piracy is theft. don't logic around it.
Oh, right. Silly me. Using logic. How idiotic of me! No, by definition it's not theft, and you didn't even read my post. When you steal from someone (theft), you're TAKING THAT OBJECT AWAY FROM THEM. THEY NO LONGER HAVE IT. When you pirate something, YOU'RE MAKING A COPY. NO ONE HAS LOST ANYTHING. THE PRODUCT THAT YOU'VE PIRATED IS IN AN INFINITE QUANTITY AND WILL NEVER RUN OUT OF COPIES. Nothing is being stolen, and even if piracy is illegal, there's nothing truly wrong with it. How many times do I have to address these issues?
Again (what is this, the third time?), you might say that they are 'stealing' the authors potential profits, but that's illogical because you have no idea if the pirate was going to buy the product if they were unable to pirate it (and I don't know many that would). It's also illogical because if impeding on someones potential profits was illegal, competition between businesses in general would be illegal (you'd be 'stealing potential profits' away from your competitors). Also, informing other people of bad/poorly made products would be illegal (you might take away their 'potential profits'!).
In short: When you pirate something, no one loses anything, the statistics that certain groups come up with in regards to the amount of piracy are completely made up (too difficult to accuracy track how many pirates there really are), it's illogical to state that if someone pirates something then that can be counted as a lost sale, and it's completely illogical and idiot to state that 'stealing potential profits' should be illegal.
Sorry to derail even further but,
Am a pirate and I know it's stealing. Am not sure if you are trying to be ignorant or just are. The point is you are taking the work of somebody who worked very hard on their product without compensation, that compensation being Money. You are basically stealing their potential income, that income being you. Sure that product is infinite, but to use your example, lets say infinite amount of people pirate it, what type of potential income is that company missing out on? Just because somebody thinks its infinite and it won't hurt the publisher.
Piracy basically takes away a percentage of possible income from the publisher, income that could be used to make better/more titles.
Also like most pirates, they won't buy the product after they pirate it. They pirate it in the first place because they can't afford it, others do it because they hate the company and don't want to support it and yet they still play their games/products.
In the end the it's simple, you are using somebody else's work without permission/compensation i.e. definition of stealing. Does not matter if they don't know about it, end result is still the same, it's stealing.
-------
On topic, I knew Blizzard has been lost when they announced that Starcraft 2 would be a trilogy. Bringing us the storyline in 3 iterations basically a excuse for "we just want more money". Something Activision seems to have made the call of.
In the end, despite it all, I think they will end in the same way of Infinity Ward. Am still surprised tbh that Activision would even dare touch the biggest cash cow they got.
On July 31 2010 22:57 Tergeron wrote: Piracy is stealing, if you think it isn't then you should introduce yourself to a dictionary.
I can see you made absolutely zero effort to read my post, which to me is unsurprising. What exactly are pirates stealing? When you steal something, it's gone from the original owner. When you pirate something, you've made a copy, and no one loses anything.
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
2.to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
3.to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance: He stole my girlfriend. 4.to move, bring, convey, or put secretly or quietly; smuggle (usually fol. by away, from, in, into, etc.): They stole the bicycle into the bedroom to surprise the child. 5.Baseball . (of a base runner) to gain (a base) without the help of a walk or batted ball, as by running to it during the delivery of a pitch. 6.Games . to gain (a point, advantage, etc.) by strategy, chance, or luck. 7.to gain or seize more than one's share of attention in, as by giving a superior performance: The comedian stole the show.
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission. 2. To present or use (someone else's words or ideas) as one's own. 3. To get or take secretly or artfully: steal a look at a diary; steal the puck from an opponent. 4. To give or enjoy (a kiss) that is unexpected or unnoticed. 5. To draw attention unexpectedly in (an entertainment), especially by being the outstanding performer: The magician's assistant stole the show with her comic antics. 6. Baseball To advance safely to (another base) during the delivery of a pitch, without the aid of a base hit, walk, passed ball, or wild pitch.
Bolded the important parts. Plenty of people have already commented on this and clarified on IP and other things. It's stealing, stop nitpicking and using semantics to make yourself feel better about doing something illegal. I've pirated myself and I don't lie to myself about how it's okay because of whatever reason.
On August 03 2010 06:37 wizerd wrote: also, wth is this crap about piracy?
if you can obtain something that has a price tag, i.e, that is for sale by the owner, and then you obtain it in such a way that you don't pay for it, that is theft. piracy is theft. don't logic around it.
Oh, right. Silly me. Using logic. How idiotic of me! No, by definition it's not theft, and you didn't even read my post. When you steal from someone (theft), you're TAKING THAT OBJECT AWAY FROM THEM. THEY NO LONGER HAVE IT. When you pirate something, YOU'RE MAKING A COPY. NO ONE HAS LOST ANYTHING. THE PRODUCT THAT YOU'VE PIRATED IS IN AN INFINITE QUANTITY AND WILL NEVER RUN OUT OF COPIES. Nothing is being stolen, and even if piracy is illegal, there's nothing truly wrong with it. How many times do I have to address these issues?
Again (what is this, the third time?), you might say that they are 'stealing' the authors potential profits, but that's illogical because you have no idea if the pirate was going to buy the product if they were unable to pirate it (and I don't know many that would). It's also illogical because if impeding on someones potential profits was illegal, competition between businesses in general would be illegal (you'd be 'stealing potential profits' away from your competitors). Also, informing other people of bad/poorly made products would be illegal (you might take away their 'potential profits'!).
In short: When you pirate something, no one loses anything, the statistics that certain groups come up with in regards to the amount of piracy are completely made up (too difficult to accuracy track how many pirates there really are), it's illogical to state that if someone pirates something then that can be counted as a lost sale, and it's completely illogical and idiot to state that 'stealing potential profits' should be illegal.
OK relax. Right now. Stop with the insults and the ALLCAPS right now. This is not how you behave around here.
Btw piracy is not piracy nor stealing. It's copyright infringement. Piracy is when you hop on a boat and board other boats and steal their stuff. It's a less fitting description that just stealing don't you think?
Analyst: Activision Could Announce Subscription Plans For CoD, StarCraft II By Year's End
Activision's new software has been weak at retail and it's once-vital music game business is no longer performing -- but some $60 million in potential Modern Warfare DLC sales during its first fiscal quarter may point to online business as the publisher's best revenue gold mine. And that means subscriptions are coming up, says Wedbush analyst Michael Pachter.
"Activision could grow earnings meaningfully by monetizing Modern Warfare 2 online multiplayer," says Pachter. "We estimate that the number of hours spent playing MW2 online is roughly 4 billion combined on Xbox Live and PSN, suggesting a large revenue opportunity. We expect the company to announce plans to monetize online multiplayer content in MW, Black Ops, StarCraft II and other games before year-end."
Such a move could explode the company's share price; "investors attribute high value to recurring revenue," says Pachter. And the impact of the drama and instability surrounding the Call of Duty brand and the Infinity Ward studio seems to have passed, he adds -- "most of the negative news (including the Infinity Ward departures) is behind the company," he notes.
Late last week came predictions from another analyst, Janco Partners' Mike Hickey, that Activision could soon try out a subscription model for Modern Warfare in China -- and in so doing, create $50-$100 million in first-year sales for Chinese online partner Netease.
Activision has never directly stated plans for a subscription service for the game in either China or the West, but the company's stance on pursuing online monetization options has always been forthright; CEO Bobby Kotick has estimated 70 percent of the company's operating profit comes from "non-console-based video games."
On August 03 2010 13:45 Archerofaiur wrote: Here I brought you guys something worthwhile to talk about. Enjoy.
Analyst: Activision Could Announce Subscription Plans For CoD, StarCraft II By Year's End
Activision's new software has been weak at retail and it's once-vital music game business is no longer performing -- but some $60 million in potential Modern Warfare DLC sales during its first fiscal quarter may point to online business as the publisher's best revenue gold mine. And that means subscriptions are coming up, says Wedbush analyst Michael Pachter.
"Activision could grow earnings meaningfully by monetizing Modern Warfare 2 online multiplayer," says Pachter. "We estimate that the number of hours spent playing MW2 online is roughly 4 billion combined on Xbox Live and PSN, suggesting a large revenue opportunity. We expect the company to announce plans to monetize online multiplayer content in MW, Black Ops, StarCraft II and other games before year-end."
Such a move could explode the company's share price; "investors attribute high value to recurring revenue," says Pachter. And the impact of the drama and instability surrounding the Call of Duty brand and the Infinity Ward studio seems to have passed, he adds -- "most of the negative news (including the Infinity Ward departures) is behind the company," he notes.
Late last week came predictions from another analyst, Janco Partners' Mike Hickey, that Activision could soon try out a subscription model for Modern Warfare in China -- and in so doing, create $50-$100 million in first-year sales for Chinese online partner Netease.
Activision has never directly stated plans for a subscription service for the game in either China or the West, but the company's stance on pursuing online monetization options has always been forthright; CEO Bobby Kotick has estimated 70 percent of the company's operating profit comes from "non-console-based video games."
Edit: no clue why formating got messed up but if a mod could fix id be thankful.
Oh wow, that sucks.
Kids here bitch about games costing $60 and even things that cost $10 a month. I don't understand it myself cause gaming is a very very cheap hobby compared to a whole bunch of other things you could with your spare time. Anyway I think it would backlash and not suit American gamers because of peoples perception here. This analyst is just trying to hype activision stock and doesn't understand the fickle american gaming market. It's just fear mongering. So who cares. Take it with a grain of salt.
This works out in asia because pc bangs are extremely popular. It makes more sense to pay a sub fee so you can go play games for people that don't have to buy a new computer hardware, pay isp etc.
This post makes me want to hurl in robet koticks shoes Which brings me to a great idea for Nike, they could put a step counter in their shoe so you have to pay for how many steps you've taken. O ya and you need to buy another pair after 18 months..
monthly fee for a RTS or a FPS makes absolutely no sense. people would just stop playing and switch to another similar game... MMOs are different since youve already put ALOT of time in your character and by switching to another game you have to start anew...
so all in all monthly fee for SC2 wont happen, but if it does i for one wont play it anymore
EDIT: and on the piracy - i wouldnt buy the game anyway (since the prices over here are ridiculous) so i aint stealing shit
On topic, I knew Blizzard has been lost when they announced that Starcraft 2 would be a trilogy. Bringing us the storyline in 3 iterations basically a excuse for "we just want more money". Something Activision seems to have made the call of.
Then was WC3:TFT or SC:BW or WC2:BotP just excuses for "we just want more money"? =s
Expansions is nothing new for Blizzard, I'm honestly surprised that so many people are shocked by it.
On August 03 2010 14:53 BeJe77 wrote: Sorry to derail even further but,
Wow. Here I thought a pirate would be less of a brainwashed tool. Let me explain to you why what you said is completely idiotic (it's also clear that you didn't read my post, or you'd know that what you said is completely illogical). Did you just say that you're stealing potential income when you pirate something? Are you serious? One, you can't count every occurrence where someone pirates something as lost income because many pirates likely would not buy the product even if they were unable to pirate it. It is completely illogical to assume that every pirate would buy the product if they couldn't obtain it for free. Also, you might as well say everyone who didn't buy the product is a pirate, because they could have earned the author more 'potential profit'. Second of all, if 'stealing' 'potential profits' was illegal, competition between businesses in general would be illegal as well, because the other businesses might 'steal' potential profits from other businesses. Third, if 'stealing' 'potential profits' was illegal, informing people about corrupt companies and poorly made products would be illegal, because it could deprive the author of 'potential profits'. There goes some freedom of speech. If, after reading this, you still don't see how saying that "stealing potential profits" should be illegal is illogical and idiotic, then there's absolutely nothing I can do for you, as your mind is far too gone. Hopefully that isn't true.
tl;dr fucking read it.
On July 31 2010 22:57 Tergeron wrote: Bolded the important parts. Plenty of people have already commented on this and clarified on IP and other things. It's stealing, stop nitpicking and using semantics to make yourself feel better about doing something illegal. I've pirated myself and I don't lie to myself about how it's okay because of whatever reason.
See above. Even if the definition did fit, what you call it doesn't really matter, as piracy is hurting nothing. Again, see above. You cannot count every time someone pirates something as theft of 'potential profits', therefore they are hurting nothing. Just because something is illegal, that doesn't mean it's wrong. Don't be a brainwashed tool. I added bold to the important parts.
On August 03 2010 16:12 zatic wrote: OK relax. Right now. Stop with the insults and the ALLCAPS right now. This is not how you behave around here.
Btw piracy is not piracy nor stealing. It's copyright infringement. Piracy is when you hop on a boat and board other boats and steal their stuff. It's a less fitting description that just stealing don't you think?
I used all caps to emphasize important parts of what I was saying. Now I'm using bold. Better? See the first part of my post, which logically explains why assuming that pirates are hurting or 'stealing' anything is simply illogical. Please read it.
On topic, I knew Blizzard has been lost when they announced that Starcraft 2 would be a trilogy. Bringing us the storyline in 3 iterations basically a excuse for "we just want more money". Something Activision seems to have made the call of.
Then was WC3:TFT or SC:BW or WC2:BotP just excuses for "we just want more money"? =s
Expansions is nothing new for Blizzard, I'm honestly surprised that so many people are shocked by it.
I don't think it would have been as poorly received if they hadn't announced that, originally, it was one title but Kotick required the development team to split it out into 3 to increase revenue.
Kotick is an equine nether region. A wart on the groin of gamers. And he likes it that way - to him, we are all contemptible. My take on it is his contempt is a compliment. Coming from him, it really means a lot. Really.
I only wish there were some way to humiliate him to his board of directors.
On July 31 2010 22:57 Tergeron wrote: Bolded the important parts. Plenty of people have already commented on this and clarified on IP and other things. It's stealing, stop nitpicking and using semantics to make yourself feel better about doing something illegal. I've pirated myself and I don't lie to myself about how it's okay because of whatever reason.
See above. Even if the definition did fit, what you call it doesn't really matter, as piracy is hurting nothing. Again, see above. You cannot count every time someone pirates something as theft of 'potential profits', therefore they are hurting nothing. Just because something is illegal, that doesn't mean it's wrong. Don't be a brainwashed tool. I added bold to the important parts.
So the dictionary is irrelevant to what you think something is? I guess that makes us brainwashed tools though. It's stealing because you are using the intellectual property of another person without their consent. If I took your brand new sports car and drove it around town for a while but returned it that doesn't change the fact that I stole it, or that you'd be pissed off because I did it. This conversation was about piracy being akin to stealing which it is based on pure semantics. If you want to argue that pirating is hurting game companies that is another issue entirely separate of this small dialogue.
As it stands I agree that calling each pirate the "loss of potential profit" is a stretch. Like I said, I've pirated games myself and there are certainly things I would of never bought that I've pirated before (Unfortunately it's never worked in reverse, except once). There is profit loss however, because a bundle of games can go on sale for as low as a penny and people will still pirate the fucking games.
On topic, I knew Blizzard has been lost when they announced that Starcraft 2 would be a trilogy. Bringing us the storyline in 3 iterations basically a excuse for "we just want more money". Something Activision seems to have made the call of.
Then was WC3:TFT or SC:BW or WC2:BotP just excuses for "we just want more money"? =s
Expansions is nothing new for Blizzard, I'm honestly surprised that so many people are shocked by it.
but Kotick required the development team to split it out into 3 to increase revenue.
They never said this was the reason. This is just random assumptions put on by peoples hate for Kotick(The hate is reasonable, pinning everything you dislike about Blizzard on him is not)
Or if they did, I apologize and ask for the source.
On August 03 2010 20:12 CROrens wrote: monthly fee for a RTS or a FPS makes absolutely no sense. people would just stop playing and switch to another similar game... MMOs are different since youve already put ALOT of time in your character and by switching to another game you have to start anew...
I would have to imagine (and pray) that this is true.
even with MW2, that would be suicide. It's not like there's a shortage of FPS clones that are exactly the same and free.
I just have to ask myself if there is any way we can actually affect this shit that's going on with the game industry. Fat money grubbing fucks like Bobby Kotick are destroying what once was the "purest" and most "innocent" industry. The times when game developers actually made games because it was their hobby, offered a lot of after sale support and worked with the community response.
Now the only company I've seen that do is Valve, where their also fat Gabe Newell said that their main focus with the steam platform is to make the user happy and feel "cared about".
"One thing that you hear [Valve] talk a lot about is entertainment as a service. It's an attitude that says 'what have I done for my customers today?'" he said. "It informs all the decisions we make, and once you get into that mindset it helps you avoid things like some of the Digital Rights Management problems that actually make your entertainment products worth less by wrapping those negatives around them."
I'm just afraid that gamers united won't take a stand and that we'll let them change the industry once and for all. High initial product prices, paid subscription for everything, microtransactions becoming mandatory to "keep up". Several to death milked franchises every year, yet still selling because of the dumb average gamer population.
Now the only company I've seen that do is Valve, where their also fat Gabe Newell said that their main focus with the steam platform is to make the user happy and feel "cared about".
Blizzard says stuff like this all the time. Why does it matter more when one company says it than another, when both have amazing and trustworthy pasts?
On August 03 2010 22:32 araged wrote: I just have to ask myself if there is any way we can actually affect this shit that's going on with the game industry. Fat money grubbing fucks like Bobby Kotick are destroying what once was the "purest" and most "innocent" industry. The times when game developers actually made games because it was their hobby, offered a lot of after sale support and worked with the community response.
Now the only company I've seen that do is Valve, where their also fat Gabe Newell said that their main focus with the steam platform is to make the user happy and feel "cared about".
"One thing that you hear [Valve] talk a lot about is entertainment as a service. It's an attitude that says 'what have I done for my customers today?'" he said. "It informs all the decisions we make, and once you get into that mindset it helps you avoid things like some of the Digital Rights Management problems that actually make your entertainment products worth less by wrapping those negatives around them."
I'm just afraid that gamers united won't take a stand and that we'll let them change the industry once and for all. High initial product prices, paid subscription for everything, microtransactions becoming mandatory to "keep up". Several to death milked franchises every year, yet still selling because of the dumb average gamer population.
Look at EA. EA has a striving business supporting developers much like publishers/editors support authors. They offer money for development costs, casting, VO's, etc, and offer input to smooth out the product. I'm not going to talk too too much about EA (I don't follow them closely), but I do know that with companies like Bioware, they let the developer develop, and then they market and so on. I think Activision will slowly come over to this way of thinking the same way EA did.
OK piracy vs stealing discussion ends here. It's derailing this thread and pretty pointless to begin with. If anyone feels the need to to rehash what has been said 5x already, blog it and take the argument there.
On August 03 2010 22:32 araged wrote: I just have to ask myself if there is any way we can actually affect this shit that's going on with the game industry. Fat money grubbing fucks like Bobby Kotick are destroying what once was the "purest" and most "innocent" industry. The times when game developers actually made games because it was their hobby, offered a lot of after sale support and worked with the community response.
Now the only company I've seen that do is Valve, where their also fat Gabe Newell said that their main focus with the steam platform is to make the user happy and feel "cared about".
"One thing that you hear [Valve] talk a lot about is entertainment as a service. It's an attitude that says 'what have I done for my customers today?'" he said. "It informs all the decisions we make, and once you get into that mindset it helps you avoid things like some of the Digital Rights Management problems that actually make your entertainment products worth less by wrapping those negatives around them."
I'm just afraid that gamers united won't take a stand and that we'll let them change the industry once and for all. High initial product prices, paid subscription for everything, microtransactions becoming mandatory to "keep up". Several to death milked franchises every year, yet still selling because of the dumb average gamer population.
Look at EA. EA has a striving business supporting developers much like publishers/editors support authors. They offer money for development costs, casting, VO's, etc, and offer input to smooth out the product. I'm not going to talk too too much about EA (I don't follow them closely), but I do know that with companies like Bioware, they let the developer develop, and then they market and so on. I think Activision will slowly come over to this way of thinking the same way EA did.
EA got a very bad reputation over the past couple years (decade) for low quality products with maximized profit decisions. Its actually really interesting if you look back at when westwood studios (Command and Conquer) was bought by EA. They went through the exact kinda cathartic conversations that the Blizzard community finds itself in post Activision merger.
On August 03 2010 22:32 araged wrote: I just have to ask myself if there is any way we can actually affect this shit that's going on with the game industry. Fat money grubbing fucks like Bobby Kotick are destroying what once was the "purest" and most "innocent" industry. The times when game developers actually made games because it was their hobby, offered a lot of after sale support and worked with the community response.
Now the only company I've seen that do is Valve, where their also fat Gabe Newell said that their main focus with the steam platform is to make the user happy and feel "cared about".
"One thing that you hear [Valve] talk a lot about is entertainment as a service. It's an attitude that says 'what have I done for my customers today?'" he said. "It informs all the decisions we make, and once you get into that mindset it helps you avoid things like some of the Digital Rights Management problems that actually make your entertainment products worth less by wrapping those negatives around them."
I'm just afraid that gamers united won't take a stand and that we'll let them change the industry once and for all. High initial product prices, paid subscription for everything, microtransactions becoming mandatory to "keep up". Several to death milked franchises every year, yet still selling because of the dumb average gamer population.
Look at EA. EA has a striving business supporting developers much like publishers/editors support authors. They offer money for development costs, casting, VO's, etc, and offer input to smooth out the product. I'm not going to talk too too much about EA (I don't follow them closely), but I do know that with companies like Bioware, they let the developer develop, and then they market and so on. I think Activision will slowly come over to this way of thinking the same way EA did.
EA got a very bad reputation over the past couple years (decade) for low quality products with maximized profit decisions. Its actually really interesting if you look back at when westwood studios (Command and Conquer) was bought by EA. They went through the exact kinda cathartic conversations that the Blizzard community finds itself in post Activision merger.
On August 03 2010 22:32 araged wrote: I just have to ask myself if there is any way we can actually affect this shit that's going on with the game industry. Fat money grubbing fucks like Bobby Kotick are destroying what once was the "purest" and most "innocent" industry. The times when game developers actually made games because it was their hobby, offered a lot of after sale support and worked with the community response.
Now the only company I've seen that do is Valve, where their also fat Gabe Newell said that their main focus with the steam platform is to make the user happy and feel "cared about".
"One thing that you hear [Valve] talk a lot about is entertainment as a service. It's an attitude that says 'what have I done for my customers today?'" he said. "It informs all the decisions we make, and once you get into that mindset it helps you avoid things like some of the Digital Rights Management problems that actually make your entertainment products worth less by wrapping those negatives around them."
I'm just afraid that gamers united won't take a stand and that we'll let them change the industry once and for all. High initial product prices, paid subscription for everything, microtransactions becoming mandatory to "keep up". Several to death milked franchises every year, yet still selling because of the dumb average gamer population.
Look at EA. EA has a striving business supporting developers much like publishers/editors support authors. They offer money for development costs, casting, VO's, etc, and offer input to smooth out the product. I'm not going to talk too too much about EA (I don't follow them closely), but I do know that with companies like Bioware, they let the developer develop, and then they market and so on. I think Activision will slowly come over to this way of thinking the same way EA did.
EA got a very bad reputation over the past couple years (decade) for low quality products with maximized profit decisions. Its actually really interesting if you look back at when westwood studios (Command and Conquer) was bought by EA. They went through the exact kinda cathartic conversations that the Blizzard community finds itself in post Activision merger.
On August 03 2010 22:32 araged wrote: I just have to ask myself if there is any way we can actually affect this shit that's going on with the game industry. Fat money grubbing fucks like Bobby Kotick are destroying what once was the "purest" and most "innocent" industry. The times when game developers actually made games because it was their hobby, offered a lot of after sale support and worked with the community response.
Now the only company I've seen that do is Valve, where their also fat Gabe Newell said that their main focus with the steam platform is to make the user happy and feel "cared about".
"One thing that you hear [Valve] talk a lot about is entertainment as a service. It's an attitude that says 'what have I done for my customers today?'" he said. "It informs all the decisions we make, and once you get into that mindset it helps you avoid things like some of the Digital Rights Management problems that actually make your entertainment products worth less by wrapping those negatives around them."
I'm just afraid that gamers united won't take a stand and that we'll let them change the industry once and for all. High initial product prices, paid subscription for everything, microtransactions becoming mandatory to "keep up". Several to death milked franchises every year, yet still selling because of the dumb average gamer population.
Look at EA. EA has a striving business supporting developers much like publishers/editors support authors. They offer money for development costs, casting, VO's, etc, and offer input to smooth out the product. I'm not going to talk too too much about EA (I don't follow them closely), but I do know that with companies like Bioware, they let the developer develop, and then they market and so on. I think Activision will slowly come over to this way of thinking the same way EA did.
EA got a very bad reputation over the past couple years (decade) for low quality products with maximized profit decisions. Its actually really interesting if you look back at when westwood studios (Command and Conquer) was bought by EA. They went through the exact kinda cathartic conversations that the Blizzard community finds itself in post Activision merger.
The point is that EA is changing. EA is supporting it's developers now. Sure EA sports is garbage and so on, but the games they publish are pretty good now. That's the relationship I want between developer and publisher.
If you don't like them don't support them. It's as simple as that. Video games aren't needed in life. Blizzard may have made great games in the past but that isn't what matters, they must continue to make great games and be genuine and honest and not try to rip you off. In WoW they rip you off but its 100% voluntary to do microtransactions, so its ok.
Blizzard said 3 games, $60 each over the course of 3 years. Thats FINE. Valve did this for HL2 Episodes (as far as I know) and its FINE. They are not hiding costs or adding premiums.
However Blizzard removing Lan for DRM and not including Chat channels to please Facebook is already showing signs of problems. Its not directly destroying the game but its the signs of deterioration. I hope Blizzard doesn't turn into Activision's right hand but there are some signs and it makes me a bit sad. It looks like Valve is the last developer thats awesome. Steam is just so good, awesome deals all the time, unlimited DL's, I feel like they care about gamers.
Bungie and Halo did this and I boycott them still. + Show Spoiler +
I loved Halo 1. I bought two Xboxes and 2 copies of halo 1 and had 6 controllers. I even got it for PC. I bought this because I loved the game. I bought books, a router, xbox live, and even subscribed to the horrible xbox magazine for a halo 2 demo (which never came, liars). I got two copies of halo 2, one for each xbox. I spend a lot of time playing and had big lans all the time. I bought more books. I saved my lunch money to buy all this stuff too since it was in high school.
Halo 2 came with new maps to play. I bought the map pack CD and gave it to all my friends. They then made more maps ONLY online so you HAVE to buy it to play ranked and for EACH account. I was so mad I quit and decided to never buy another halo product. I did get a copy of halo 3 (just barely for the story) and it was crap. Halo 2 single was crap. It wasn't even about the money its just about being treated like a cash cow. I have no problem spending money on the things I love but when they force you to buy garbage and make hidden costs and try to be sly I hate that. Its just wrong to do that. If Halo 2 cost $70 upfront I would have paid that (I paid $125 with tax for 2 copies).
I now hate halo and bungie and will never buy another one of their products ever and tell everyone else not to because they are greedy assholes. I don't care about the universe, the games, the books, or anything anymore. I think a lot of people are like me and wish more were so companies wouldn't act like this. If blizzard decided to do something over the line in SC2 I'd probably do the same thing. I'd prob keep playing though b/c I don't have to pay them more money.
Why do some people keep complaining about the absence of chat channels? This has nothing to do with the topic. Absence of chat channels is, like one account per key, a good feature. The people in there are annoying.
This forums are moderated and even they are full of non-sense.
I'm appalled at how someone can be so desperate for money :/ sure every company out there wants to earn big, but to do so in such a way is too disgusting for me to handle. Next thing you would see would be blizzard releasing omegalisks for multiplayer ladder game use, but you must buy them, which costs 25 dollars and would only last for a week and hence you would have to buy it again :/. And the point is its so true that its so sad and not funny
If activision blizzard were to be the pioneer of gaming i cant forsee much future in it where the element of fun is replaced with 'money'.
As much as I dislike this, it may seem that Activision may be destroying the core concept of making video games (for peoples entertainment as opposed to money), people do have to realize that his(and the companies) only job is to make money for the company and the shareholders.
He isn't some evil tyrant out to destroy fun for everyone. He was hired to to a job and is doing it...and quite well.
While what he is doing seems shitty, if he fails he will be removed and someone else will take his place. He doesn't care what you think about him, he only cares what the board thinks, the shareholders think and what the balance sheet is showing. What does he care if you boycott the game- 100 other people aren't. As long as people are paying for the extra stuff, what incentive does the company have to remove it. If your unhappy but you still buy it nothing will change.
Awful? Yes, but that is what billions of dollars will do to any industry.
The best companies still are and always will be, the ones that only want/need enough money to get by, you will find that they listen to their community and care about their fans. Coming from a small town, run by Mom & Pop stores I see this firsthand. Not enough cash, no big deal just pay us next time you come in...try doing that at any corporate run store.
Anyone who's ever worked for a company with a "corporate" should realize that they care less about the employees as much as they do the profits- they can always hire new people.
Tl;DR Don't blame corporations - blame money. Kotick is just doing his job.
Can't belive I missed this the first time. Amazing writeup and I tihnk this is what happens everytime people feel they can make a lot of money out of a business.
As much as I dislike this, and think that the National Socialist Party may be destroying the core concept of making people's life better (for peoples well-being as opposed to money), people do have to realize that his only job is to make money for the voter and the government stakeholders.
He isn't some evil tyrant out to destroy wealth for everyone. He was hired to to a job and is doing it...and quite well.
While what he is doing seems shitty, if he fails he will be removed and someone else will take his place. He doesn't care what you think about him, he only cares if the party elects him, the indstrualists think and what the balance sheet is showing. What does he care if you boycott the the polls- a few million other people aren't. As long as people are voting for the extra stuff, what incentive does the NSDAP have to remove it. If your unhappy but you still vote for it nothing will change.
Awful? Yes, but that is what billions of dollars will do to any republic.
The best governments still are and always will be, the ones that only want/need enough money to get by, you will find that they listen to their community and care about their voters. Coming from a small town, run by Mom & Pop stores I see this firsthand. Not enough cash, no big deal just pay us next time you come in...try doing that at any fascist run government.
Anyone who's ever worked for a government with a "fascist dictatorship" should realize that they care less about the employees as much as they do the profits- they can always hire new people.
Tl;DR Don't blame governments - blame money. You know who is just doing his job.
On September 29 2010 00:34 Perscienter wrote: As much as I dislike this, and think that the National Socialist Party may be destroying the core concept of making people's life better (for peoples well-being as opposed to money), people do have to realize that his only job is to make money for the voter and the government stakeholders.
He isn't some evil tyrant out to destroy wealth for everyone. He was hired to to a job and is doing it...and quite well.
While what he is doing seems shitty, if he fails he will be removed and someone else will take his place. He doesn't care what you think about him, he only cares if the party elects him, the indstrualists think and what the balance sheet is showing. What does he care if you boycott the the polls- a few million other people aren't. As long as people are voting for the extra stuff, what incentive does the NSDAP have to remove it. If your unhappy but you still vote for it nothing will change.
Awful? Yes, but that is what billions of dollars will do to any republic.
The best governments still are and always will be, the ones that only want/need enough money to get by, you will find that they listen to their community and care about their voters. Coming from a small town, run by Mom & Pop stores I see this firsthand. Not enough cash, no big deal just pay us next time you come in...try doing that at any fascist run government.
Anyone who's ever worked for a government with a "fascist dictatorship" should realize that they care less about the employees as much as they do the profits- they can always hire new people.
Tl;DR Don't blame governments - blame money. You know who is just doing his job.
Not sure what your point is here...just changing the shit I wrote to gov'ts perhaps trying to liken me to a communist or socialist, or just saying the post I made was universal.
I actually have no problems with corporations. They give lot's of jobs and can help smaller company's expand, just trying to help poeple realize that they are mad a Kotick for something that can't really be helped, esppecially when people complain but still buy the product. Activision blizzard still makes good games, so who cares if they try to get there moneys worth for them. You might not get the same customer service as a small store, but you can generally get the items a lot cheaper.
Small businesses are the best because you get such a personal interaction whith the owner, as a customer or employee. Again, go work for any corporate retail chain, and try having a bad week where you don't make much money, and see how fast management will come down on the store for not meeting quota's. You take the good with the bad I guess.
Quoted for truth. There's been way too much hate directed at Activision while they have no influence over Blizzard. Kotick, which apparently some believe is the devil himself, is definitely doing his job as he's expected, and he's quite ambitious too. Can't blame him for that.
I hate Kotick. It's so crippling to the game industry to take fun out of game development. People need a relaxing, creative enviroment to come up with cool shit, you can't just stand over them and yell YOU BETTER COME UP WITH SOMETHING FUN MOTHERFUCKER OR YOU'LL GET FIRED, it just doesn't work.
It'll get you money, people are idiots, they'll buy 10th edition of CoD or fucking Tony Hawk shit because your programmers can just sit in a cubical for a year and program some more fancy graphics and effects, but in the end of the day it's just an FPS shooter or whatever
Under his direction Activision will never come up with something like Psychonauts or System Shock 2, that takes creativity
Most of the 20 years, that I have provided for growth at Activision, we were content to make products that are attractive to the 16-35 year old guy who has gotten no date for Saturday night.
I highly doubt someone as well informed and formal as Mr. Kotick would express such a statement. Who is he trying to please? It makes no sense.
Luckily I have complete sovereignty as a consumer and have freedom to chose whether or not I want to buy any of the products Blizzard tries to sell me.
Personally, I think Activision has done as much good as harm to the PC industry. In the name of profits of course. One of the primary problems the PC has is it never had a representative company to promote and support it. Microsoft actively seems to discourage PC gaming, and has never brought a port on time, nor let a triple A game release on the PC for quite some time. All in the name of profit, because it is in direct competition with Xbox, a platform which is far more profitable for them, being completely monopolized by them.
Activision seeks to break from of the monopolistic regulations that Microsoft imposes on the X-box, and for them, the best way to do so is invest in PC gaming. And while this shift in interest has caused fiascos like the MW2 dedicated server/pricing uproar, the fact remains that almost every single AA/AAA title Activison has released with the exception of Guitar Hero has received a port to the PC.
And while Kotick may be indifferent to gaming as a whole, most Microsoft execs seem to veritably ooze maleficence at PC gaming, literally bashing it at every opportunity.
Quoted for truth. There's been way too much hate directed at Activision while they have no influence over Blizzard. Kotick, which apparently some believe is the devil himself, is definitely doing his job as he's expected, and he's quite ambitious too. Can't blame him for that.
Vivendi exec literally are not involved in any way what so ever. They are a multimedia mega conglomerate, and I'd be surprised if they could even name more then 8 Activision Blizzard franchises. The only thing that matters at all to them is a few broad, overarching meetings and the end revenue. If there is under performance, there action would be limited to firing executives.
How much direct influences Kotick has on Blizzard is questionable, his influence on actual design even more so, but its unarguable that he is going to have an indirect influence on company direction. Morhaime is a rather nice guy though.
On September 29 2010 06:02 Half wrote: Personally, I think Activision has done as much good as harm to the PC industry. In the name of profits of course. One of the primary problems the PC has is it never had a representative company to promote and support it. Microsoft actively seems to discourage PC gaming, and has never brought a port on time, nor let a triple A game release on the PC for quite some time. All in the name of profit, because it is in direct competition with Xbox, a platform which is far more profitable for them, being completely monopolized by them.
Activision seeks to break from of the monopolistic regulations that Microsoft imposes on the X-box, and for them, the best way to do so is invest in PC gaming. And while this shift in interest has caused fiascos like the MW2 dedicated server/pricing uproar, the fact remains that almost every single AA/AAA title Activison has released with the exception of Guitar Hero has received a port to the PC.
I agree. Keep in mind that you can't just treat games as a business model. Games are an art form in their infancy and to treat franchises like cows to milk and forcing people to work on Modern Warfares they don't want to make really doesn't earn a lot of respect from other people. The fact that Activision is still sticking with this formula of releasing sequel after sequel pains me and just shows how a monopoly and the wrong type of leadership can come together to create a mess of trouble.
Oh, and Kotick has some balls. The guy goes on and declares that Bungie is theirs and is the last great independent developer. He must have pissed off dozens of people who are in it not for the money but for the love of the medium. In fact, I believe the chief executive of Breach replied to him and said if Bungie really is the last great indie developer, Activision is shit outta luck cause they have taken all the developers and run them to the ground.
Lol. The Breach guy even said he would offer a Bobby Kotick model for players to use in multiplayer games. Let me tell you, would LOVE TO SHOOT THAT!
On September 29 2010 06:02 Half wrote: Personally, I think Activision has done as much good as harm to the PC industry. In the name of profits of course. One of the primary problems the PC has is it never had a representative company to promote and support it. Microsoft actively seems to discourage PC gaming, and has never brought a port on time, nor let a triple A game release on the PC for quite some time. All in the name of profit, because it is in direct competition with Xbox, a platform which is far more profitable for them, being completely monopolized by them.
Activision seeks to break from of the monopolistic regulations that Microsoft imposes on the X-box, and for them, the best way to do so is invest in PC gaming. And while this shift in interest has caused fiascos like the MW2 dedicated server/pricing uproar, the fact remains that almost every single AA/AAA title Activison has released with the exception of Guitar Hero has received a port to the PC.
I agree. Keep in mind that you can't just treat games as a business model. Games are an art form in their infancy and to treat franchises like cows to milk and forcing people to work on Modern Warfares they don't want to make really doesn't earn a lot of respect from other people. The fact that Activision is still sticking with this formula of releasing sequel after sequel pains me and just shows how a monopoly and the wrong type of leadership can come together to create a mess of trouble.
Oh, and Kotick has some balls. The guy goes on and declares that Bungie is theirs and is the last great independent developer. He must have pissed off dozens of people who are in it not for the money but for the love of the medium. In fact, I believe the chief executive of Breach replied to him and said if Bungie really is the last great indie developer, Activision is shit outta luck cause they have taken all the developers and run them to the ground.
Lol. The Breach guy even said he would offer a Bobby Kotick model for players to use in multiplayer games. Let me tell you, would LOVE TO SHOOT THAT!
Well, you have to treat games as a business model, because people will buy them and there is huge profit to be made. Regardless of what you or I think about the matter.
Games will be treated as an Art form when people treat them as an art form. When the consumer mindlessly consumes MW12, you cant really blame capitalistic for exploiting them.
That really goes for blizzard too. As long as Fans continue to demand more from them, continue to scream and cry and bitch when they do stuff like omitting chat channels or forcing Real ID, they will give more.
That being said Kotick is a fucking faggot asshat that I would like see shot repeatedly as well T_T.
Activision is shit outta luck cause they have taken all the developers and run them to the ground.
Yeah, I don't think Activisions business model is sustainable. Chances are its going to crash soon, with long reaching effects on the industry. But that doesn't have me worried. Every single game market crash has been a period of unprecedented growth for the PC market, and the advent of some hugely amazing products (Like Diablo and Fallout) that could never have occurred otherwise. Console gamers can go diaf :3.
Quoted for truth. There's been way too much hate directed at Activision while they have no influence over Blizzard. Kotick, which apparently some believe is the devil himself, is definitely doing his job as he's expected, and he's quite ambitious too. Can't blame him for that.
Vivendi exec literally are not involved in any way what so ever. They are a multimedia mega conglomerate, and I'd be surprised if they could even name more then 8 Activision Blizzard franchises. The only thing that matters at all to them is a few broad, overarching meetings and the end revenue. If there is under performance, there action would be limited to firing executives.
How much direct influences Kotick has on Blizzard is questionable, his influence on actual design even more so, but its unarguable that he is going to have an indirect influence on company direction. Morhaime is a rather nice guy though.
this is a little naive to say, don't you think? Do you really think Vivendi bought activision and then said "OK GUYS DO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO BLIZZARD WE DON'T CARE". Or do you think that they may be really good at keeping their name out of it?
Bottom line is that Kotick's job is to appease Vivendi. If he's not doing what they want, then they'll get rid of him.
So how much was the OP paid to do a hatchet job on Blizzard by marginalizing everything Blizzard does and emphasizing Activision, when Vivendi owns the whole mess?
What's up with pushing profit to the limit? Do you really have to extort as much money as possible from people? Would that be a business success? With people like that high in video games companies, it's no wonder epic good games are getting rarer.
Quoted for truth. There's been way too much hate directed at Activision while they have no influence over Blizzard. Kotick, which apparently some believe is the devil himself, is definitely doing his job as he's expected, and he's quite ambitious too. Can't blame him for that.
Vivendi exec literally are not involved in any way what so ever. They are a multimedia mega conglomerate, and I'd be surprised if they could even name more then 8 Activision Blizzard franchises. The only thing that matters at all to them is a few broad, overarching meetings and the end revenue. If there is under performance, there action would be limited to firing executives.
How much direct influences Kotick has on Blizzard is questionable, his influence on actual design even more so, but its unarguable that he is going to have an indirect influence on company direction. Morhaime is a rather nice guy though.
this is a little naive to say, don't you think? Do you really think Vivendi bought activision and then said "OK GUYS DO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO BLIZZARD WE DON'T CARE". Or do you think that they may be really good at keeping their name out of it?
Bottom line is that Kotick's job is to appease Vivendi. If he's not doing what they want, then they'll get rid of him.
No, your naive because you have no fucking clue how large business operate. Exec are not babysitters. When you control dozens of Cinema, Film, and Video Game publishing and other entertainment enterprises, you do not have the time nor the specific knowledge to make detailed business decisions on behalf of any of them.
Quoted for truth. There's been way too much hate directed at Activision while they have no influence over Blizzard. Kotick, which apparently some believe is the devil himself, is definitely doing his job as he's expected, and he's quite ambitious too. Can't blame him for that.
Vivendi exec literally are not involved in any way what so ever. They are a multimedia mega conglomerate, and I'd be surprised if they could even name more then 8 Activision Blizzard franchises. The only thing that matters at all to them is a few broad, overarching meetings and the end revenue. If there is under performance, there action would be limited to firing executives.
How much direct influences Kotick has on Blizzard is questionable, his influence on actual design even more so, but its unarguable that he is going to have an indirect influence on company direction. Morhaime is a rather nice guy though.
this is a little naive to say, don't you think? Do you really think Vivendi bought activision and then said "OK GUYS DO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO BLIZZARD WE DON'T CARE". Or do you think that they may be really good at keeping their name out of it?
Bottom line is that Kotick's job is to appease Vivendi. If he's not doing what they want, then they'll get rid of him.
No, your naive because you have no fucking clue how large business operate. Exec are not babysitters. When you control dozens of Cinema, Film, and Video Game publishing and other entertainment enterprises, you do not have the time nor the specific knowledge to make detailed business decisions on behalf of any of them.
What are you talking about? Vivendi controls 7 companies, Activison Blizzard being the third largest. All of their companies below Activison Blizzard are incredibly small, so they are really managing 3 large companies here. Not dozens.
Very well written. That said, pretty much all of the stuff that was posted as a negative on Activision - particularly regarding the profit motive - I take no issue with. If people actually prefer a caring company, then they will reward those gaming companies with their business. However, I suspect that the vast majority of people don't care whether the game was made with love or not; rather, only the final product matters.
Don't like their employment practices? Their employees are protected by all the same statutes that other employees are protected by...so why should programmers get special sympathy? If programmers are worried about being treated badly by activision, they can choose not to work for that company...if there aren't enough programmer jobs out there to avoid activision, then they can join the millions of other people out there who have to retrain to get better employment. If activision's employment standards are as horrendous as this OP makes it out to be, then they will scare off talented employees, the quality of their games will suffer relative to the companies that have the talented people, they won't make as many sales, and they will make a lower profit. It doesn't take an MBA to figure that out, and I'm sure the Activision execs are fully aware of that.
God, I've gotta stop now because I could write a 100 page paper on how business works, and how ultimately it is the consumer which decides what companies they want to support through purchasing products, and how they want industries to be regulated by advancing and supporting new legislation. If you are all actually 'disgusted' by this OP, preserve your dignity and values; DON'T BUY THE SC2 EXPANSIONS, and go join your local labor party.
Gaming is NOT like other businesses, yes profit is what keeps a company moving but there is much more that we, the gamers, expect from them. The way they are trying to shape this market is definitely wrong, killing off innovation and niches, do you even know what that means!? I hate to make this example but it is like what you see in today's music industry, junk pop and rap dominant because they DO SELL, since the majority of the buyers don't have a clue about music, and as a real music lover, shouldn't you be angry about this?
And this Kotick guy, he just got lucky with the guitar hero fad, selling extra songs/ guitar equipments and all that spin offs. There is no way you can use the same trick on any other stuff without being a complete nonsense. It is disgusting when they try to block the mods so they can grap a profit from them . They don't even know how precious it is to have a customer group that trying to set up a community behind a game, in fact they don't value the gamers at all. And I don't even want to discuss whats happening in the management there. "Jason West and Vince Zampella get fired, they were replaced by internal Activision Publishing employees (who worked for Procter & Gamble and Nestle before)."
The plain fact is that these guys have no sense about gaming, and now they are spreading this cancer--this "exploit theory" in the gaming industry through Blizzard, one of the best in the industry, yes this is going to be effective and will most likely become a trend. It is going to be nasty.
Was reading Shamus Young's site for the first time in a while today, and he linked to an article he wrote about Kotick, saying a lot of the things that have been said here, only more politely.
Best line: "If all you want is for Activision-Blizzard to make money - any money - then they could fire Kotick and hire a desk lamp, because Blizzard was an unstoppable cash-generating dynamo before Kotick ever sat down in the CEO chair."
i just can't stand how sad i am after seeing this, it actually makes me regret buying sc2, i just want the good old blizzard back, and know i see no LAN either to D3? oh god, i won't buy D3 then and prolly won't ever buy a blizzard game again, activision just ruined the company i've always loved since i was like 7 playing wc2 and loved diablo back into 97, not to mention i play sc since 98, this just makes me want to cry, seriously. i even have a tattoo with the diablo font :/
This is why I'm skeptical when people say Acti-Blizzard really cares about keeping BW alive. Does anyone really think a douche like Kotick would care about the BW scene? Not enough money in it for the likes of him.
On October 08 2010 16:18 tomatriedes wrote: This is why I'm skeptical when people say Acti-Blizzard really cares about keeping BW alive. Does anyone really think a douche like Kotick would care about the BW scene? Not enough money in it for the likes of him.
Honestly, in 3 years, a lot of the people playing sc2 will drop out, and it will be slightly bigger crowd than the ones who played BW. Then they will realize they can't make money off of it, and they are gonna stop caring about it. GSL isn't going to last a very long time like sc1 proscene.
Props for this. I'm sure it took a lot of time to put together all the links and info, a very interesting and informative read.
As someone who works in the online game industry I can tell you that it certainly isn't as glamorous as a lot of gamers think it is. We're still ruled by the outdated 20th century business models and execs who can only understand the word "profit".
We're still ruled by the outdated 20th century business models and execs who can only understand the word "profit".
And what words should your executives understand?
American corporate culture is very bad at long term thinking; that's a valid complaint. But saying that profit is all they care about... of course it is! They're leaders of a corporation; the purpose of a corporation is to make money.
Honestly, is this hard to understand? Executives of public corporations are in fact legally required to maximize profits. That's right; if the board of executives thinks that the CEO has passed up obvious avenues of profit, they can sue him. This is generally done in cases of gross negligence or malfeasance, but the option exists.
Do you think that Valve came up with Steam out of the goodness of their hearts? Do you think Blizzard made WoW because they were bored and wanted to make an MMO? This is how companies work; they do things that make money.
On October 08 2010 17:29 FecalDecal wrote: As someone who works in the online game industry I can tell you that it certainly isn't as glamorous as a lot of gamers think it is. We're still ruled by the outdated 20th century business models and execs who can only understand the word "profit".
Outdated, you say? So then what is the modern way to go about this? Preferably with some examples of this method producing good games.
Another thing to remember is that getting rid of your CEO is usually a negative thing for a publicly held company. It hurts the stock price and makes the board look bad, so there are reasons they might hang onto Kotick even if the board was unhappy with his performance. The point is, the fact that he has a job isn't proof that he's any good at it or that someone else couldn't do a lot better. Activision deserves more for its fifteen million bucks. So do gamers.
Gross. I can't explain it but I've gotten pretty bored of Starcraft 2 recently. I've been thinking of quitting or taking a long break. This post has made me confirm my decision: i'm boycotting the game. Blizzard is dead.
Thanks for the post! I refuse to feed this company anymore.
Edit: Just to add - When I played the campaign I felt betrayed by the fact that their initial claim that "there was too much content to fit into one game" was bullshit. Most of the missions were filler and a lot of the content that felt "necessary" to put in felt forced just to get to 28 missions. On top of that, the story, in my opinion, was bad and the dialogue was shit.
I felt that I had been lied to, which aggravated me. The cross-realm playing, and the fact that soon, they will charge you for a name change (which is outrageous) as well as their many other money-making schemes, only enhances my anger over the game. Add all that frustration to the fact that really, if you open your eyes, the multiplayer experience isn't that good and you have one gamer who has decided to stop.
What makes this game good is the community and not the game itself. They have used their name to create a far superior online community compared with the community associated with other online games. Starcraft II alone is not that impressive. Most people are ready to defend it solely because it's Starcraft/Blizzard. Blizzard has changed.
We're still ruled by the outdated 20th century business models and execs who can only understand the word "profit".
And what words should your executives understand?
American corporate culture is very bad at long term thinking; that's a valid complaint. But saying that profit is all they care about... of course it is! They're leaders of a corporation; the purpose of a corporation is to make money.
Honestly, is this hard to understand? Executives of public corporations are in fact legally required to maximize profits. That's right; if the board of executives thinks that the CEO has passed up obvious avenues of profit, they can sue him. This is generally done in cases of gross negligence or malfeasance, but the option exists.
Do you think that Valve came up with Steam out of the goodness of their hearts? Do you think Blizzard made WoW because they were bored and wanted to make an MMO? This is how companies work; they do things that make money.
Blizzard probably had this thought when they created World of Warcraft "We could create this amazing games that we're sure players will love. Money will follow"
I don't think Blizzard focus so much on how to make money, but on how to make a good game. The money just naturally follows, and they know it.
Oh Bobby, you let so many brainfarts rip it's astounding.
I'm at the point where this asshat probably could do anything and I wouldn't raise an eyebrow about it. I don't know what's more amazing, the fact that he doesn't try to hide the fact he's an assclown or the fact he still has a job. Quite frankly, he must be a PR-consultants worst fucking nightmare, everything this fudgepacker does seem to upset pretty much everyone.
What really pisses me off about Bobby is the fact that between his sessions of clubbing baby seals and killing the unborn, he seems to be trying his hardest to utterly burn Blizzards name into the ground and he is doing a damn good job.
Bobby Kotick would have made a damn fine SS-officer.
On September 29 2010 01:17 228zip wrote: Kotick, which apparently some believe is the devil himself, is definitely doing his job as he's expected, and he's quite ambitious too. Can't blame him for that.
Is he? The problem isn't that a CEO is trying to make money, The problem is whether the CEO's ideas for making money are any good.
The most successful gaming company - Blizzard - has thrived on: innovation + quality. That's what made them a ton of money and that's why they are successful now. Kotick's core philosophy seems to be directly in contrast with this: innovation is secondary to repetition, and quality is secondary to finding ways of charging people for stuff.
I'd say Kotick as a manager seems to come across as a crude, short-term hack. Like the businessman whose great idea is slapping the Mercedes or Rolls Royce brand on a bunch of cheap Chinese cars and trying to sell them at premium prices to suckers. Ethically questionable, and terrible long-term perspectives.
So, the studios who created WoW, SC2 and CoD are the people who actually made the money and the success - through their dedication to product quality and innovative ideas. Kotick is an ignorant amateur who tries to poach on their success by coming up with garbage monetization schemes instead of actually looking at how to make the best product and to make sure these brands are treasured and remain a part of gaming.
On September 29 2010 01:17 228zip wrote: Kotick, which apparently some believe is the devil himself, is definitely doing his job as he's expected, and he's quite ambitious too. Can't blame him for that.
Is he? The problem isn't that a CEO is trying to make money, The problem is whether the CEO's ideas for making money are any good.
The most successful gaming company - Blizzard - has thrived on: innovation + quality. That's what made them a ton of money and that's why they are successful now. Kotick's core philosophy seems to be directly in contrast with this: innovation is secondary to repetition, and quality is secondary to finding ways of charging people for stuff.
I'd say Kotick as a manager seems to come across as a crude, short-term hack. Like the businessman whose great idea is slapping the Mercedes or Rolls Royce brand on a bunch of cheap Chinese cars and trying to sell them at premium prices to suckers. Ethically questionable, and terrible long-term perspectives.
So, the studios who created WoW, SC2 and CoD are the people who actually made the money and the success - through their dedication to product quality and innovative ideas. Kotick is an ignorant amateur who tries to poach on their success by coming up with garbage monetization schemes instead of actually looking at how to make the best product and to make sure these brands are treasured and remain a part of gaming.
Kotick is a CEO, he is only interested in making money and maintaining shareholder confidence. The problem is that (much like Mr. Zuckerburg) he is an ignorant child with a narcissistic worldview. This will often lead to him having a rather unique viewpoint on certain issues.
For example:
Most people think that the Developer makes the game and the publisher fronts the finances for the game to be made. The publisher is responsible for ensureing that their investment is being appropriately resourced and not wasted. As such the publisher is entitled to meetings with the developers to ensure that the game is proceeding according to schedule.
Kotick's point of view is that the publisher is the one to be credited for the creation of a good game because they had the forsight to provide capital to the developer even thought they spent most of their money rushing the game and cutting corners.
Most people think that Full Creative Authority means that the developer gets to choose what games they want to make, how much time it will take to make the games, and what to keep/remove from a game.
Kotick believes that Full Creative Authority means that the developer has the right to make whatever game Activision wants them to make and Activision has the right to fire them before they get paid.
Most developers believe that producing a steady stream of quality games that are varied in content will generate a group of followers who will purchase future content produced by the developer because they trust the developers quality.
Kotick doesn't give a shit if consumers lose confidence in a company because as soon as they do, Kotick will place all of the blame on the developer and fire all of their staff.
what disgusts me most about this is that alot of hobbyist-gone-professional transition through creating mods/maps for games. think team fortress, counter strike, even dota is making big bucks for people these days.
With the stranglehold this new regime has on the community, if you EVER try to be creative and hone your hobbyist skills, know that blizzard now own your content and any professional industry you could creative for yourself will now belong to them instead.
This is sad because if this sort of regime is the future the only way joe average can 'make it' is to go to uni, get a degree, get employed by faceless corp, and make someone elses games, not your own.
Kotick. Fired. A lot of people. For no real good reason. Kotick is a douchebag, who only wants money for himself, and doesn't even properly pay his employees. What happens in the movie is that some meddling kid visits the headquarters and Kotick gets arrested for doing something illegal and stupid. Only in the movies of course.
Much appreciate bumping this. It was obvious to me that Blizzard and Activision deserved no support even before reading this but this thread just adds fuel to the fire.
I hate hate hate hate hate giving money to Blizzard. I used to be happy to supported them. Unfortunately the alternatives are very limited when it comes to RTS communities of Starcraft 2's quality. Me playing Starcraft 2 has very little to do with the quality of Starcraft 2 or bnet, instead it's mostly because of communities like teamliquid and the fact that my friends play Starcraft 2.
On March 01 2011 01:01 Gigaudas wrote: Much appreciate bumping this. It was obvious to me that Blizzard and Activision deserved no support even before reading this but this thread just adds fuel to the fire.
I hate hate hate hate hate giving money to Blizzard. I used to be happy to supported them. Unfortunately the alternatives are very limited when it comes to RTS communities of Starcraft 2's quality. Me playing Starcraft 2 has very little to do with the quality of Starcraft 2 or bnet, instead it's mostly because of communities like teamliquid and the fact that my friends play Starcraft 2.
I assure you, Teamliquid wouldn't be what it is for SC2 if SC2 wasn't a quality product. I have no doubts that if SC2 was horrible for one reason or another you wouldn't see great communities surrounding it.
How anyone posting on a Starcraft website can say Blizzard deserves no support is beyond me.
i have been supporting blizzard since WOW TBC and it has become disgusting very lately. it isnt even profit maximizing. they are just trying to suck out all your money like EA
First of all,we must remember that most of the ppl who developed SC 1/SC: BW are not working with blizz anymore (most of them worked for Blizzard North i think).That means the ideas and general tought process who created BW isn't there anymore.
Blizz lost valuable ppl time and time again. Mike Morhaime fired ppl,Kotick fired ppl.But while when Mike Morhaime was CEO,they were also interested in making lots of money,they understood that they way to do that is through quality games.It didn't matter that at first they weren't so noob friendly (SC 1 or WoW),if someone sees his buddy play and thinks it's cool,he will buy the game.
The people who played Vanilla WoW remember how it was in the beginning and how is it now. I'm not trying to turn this into a "casual vs hard core " WoW fight,but lets just say that the game became more and more casual just to atract more people. That is a good thing,but Kotick wants every game to be squeezed to the max.
At start WoW had like 1-2 million subscribers and after people started learning about it,it grew to about 7 million.But for Kotick that isn't enough.After dumbing the game down,it grew to 13 million.
Yay for Blizz no ?
Lets just say that the same will happen to SC 2. Lets observe the "new stuff"
-Alert for MULE/Chronoboost/Inject Larva? -Hiding losses? -Balancing based on 2v2/3v3/4v4? Pls note that BW wasn't balanced based on 2v2/3v3/4v4. -Nerf every possible "trick" which would rewarded ppl with high APM. That includes the worker "bug" (the one which if u spammed return cargo it would not w8 that amount of time to return the minerals),the burrowed infestor NP (i don't think that would had been game changing,but i think it been talked to death already),the "archon toilet" (this is not something trully APM challenging,but more related to how u can get the MS /archons safely).
What would BW would had look like if blizz would "fix" vulture atack-move,muta-stacking and others?
Don't want to be the "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! THE WORLD WILL END!" guy,but things get catered to casuals. And kotick doesn't give a s..t about the game is not "fun" to watch or that u are spoon fed with everything u need.If the bronze players are happy,they're happy. Yes i know they are the vast majority of the playerbase,but remember,the ppl who will play this game in 4-6 years are not them.
Also something not strictly related to the topic,but somewhat related.When i heard Browder say that not all the expansions will bring new units,because "it will be too hard to balance",i lost most of my hope in Blizz.
Also something not strictly related to the topic,but somewhat related.When i heard Browder say that not all the expansions will bring new units,because "it will be too hard to balance",i lost most of my hope in Blizz.
On March 01 2011 01:01 Gigaudas wrote: Much appreciate bumping this. It was obvious to me that Blizzard and Activision deserved no support even before reading this but this thread just adds fuel to the fire.
I hate hate hate hate hate giving money to Blizzard. I used to be happy to supported them. Unfortunately the alternatives are very limited when it comes to RTS communities of Starcraft 2's quality. Me playing Starcraft 2 has very little to do with the quality of Starcraft 2 or bnet, instead it's mostly because of communities like teamliquid and the fact that my friends play Starcraft 2.
I assure you, Teamliquid wouldn't be what it is for SC2 if SC2 wasn't a quality product. I have no doubts that if SC2 was horrible for one reason or another you wouldn't see great communities surrounding it.
How anyone posting on a Starcraft website can say Blizzard deserves no support is beyond me.
The only influence I have over Blizzard's products is whether I chose to spend money on them or not.
If Blizzard were to try their best to offer the best products possible then I would like to reward them for trying so that they continue trying.
If Blizzard purposely make the decisions to screw their customers over in ways that they think might profit them then the only thing I can do about that is to keep my money in my pocket. If I'm lucky, everyone else will do the same and Blizzard will release a better product.
On March 01 2011 01:26 Akash wrote: First of all,we must remember that most of the ppl who developed SC 1/SC: BW are not working with blizz anymore (most of them worked for Blizzard North i think).That means the ideas and general tought process who created BW isn't there anymore.
Blizz lost valuable ppl time and time again. Mike Morhaime fired ppl,Kotick fired ppl.But while when Mike Morhaime was CEO,they were also interested in making lots of money,they understood that they way to do that is through quality games.It didn't matter that at first they weren't so noob friendly (SC 1 or WoW),if someone sees his buddy play and thinks it's cool,he will buy the game.
Can't speak for SC1 and when it was released, but WoW was a noob friendly game when you compare it to the other big MMOs at the time. Compare the endgame of WoW to Everquest for example.
The people who played Vanilla WoW remember how it was in the beginning and how is it now. I'm not trying to turn this into a "casual vs hard core " WoW fight,but lets just say that the game became more and more casual just to atract more people. That is a good thing,but Kotick wants every game to be squeezed to the max.
You could argue the game was more fun, people tend to look at vanilla with rose tinted glasses. Running one dungeon for fire resistance gear for hours upon hours isn't fun, it was a needless and pain staking grind. The game did become more "casual", but I find that most who say it is aren't even raiding end game.
I haven't played Cata personally but from what I hear it isn't a cakewalk, ditto for ICC. Sure, any tard can grind some heroics and get purples but you still need a fucking big investment to get the best of the best shit.
At start WoW had like 1-2 million subscribers and after people started learning about it,it grew to about 7 million.But for Kotick that isn't enough.After dumbing the game down,it grew to 13 million.
Yay for Blizz no ?
The game grew because people loved it and do to this day. You seem to have forgotten that most really hard bosses got nerfed to hell and back shortly after being released, long before Activision became a part of Blizzard.
Oh and Blizzard started charging for shit they promised they would never charge for before Acti came along, they aren't quite the saints people make them out to be. They're a business in the end. C'thulu anyone? [/quote]
Lets just say that the same will happen to SC 2. Lets observe the "new stuff"
-Alert for MULE/Chronoboost/Inject Larva? -Hiding losses? -Balancing based on 2v2/3v3/4v4? Pls note that BW wasn't balanced based on 2v2/3v3/4v4. -Nerf every possible "trick" which would rewarded ppl with high APM. That includes the worker "bug" (the one which if u spammed return cargo it would not w8 that amount of time to return the minerals),the burrowed infestor NP (i don't think that would had been game changing,but i think it been talked to death already),the "archon toilet" (this is not something trully APM challenging,but more related to how u can get the MS /archons safely).
-Okay, I'd say this helps newer players and will barely affect pro play. I don't particularly like it, but it's hardly going to change my play at least. -New players won't be intimidated by stats, whatever. Helping new players enjoy SC2 isn't a bad thing, whatever you might think. -Stupid, I agree. -Archon toilet was broken, I don't see how you can bring that up as a bad nerf. It was an hilarious exploit but it needed to get nerfed in one way or another, shit man, that was overpowered. The mineral trick? Well, damn. Do you really want to do that? Could argue that one all day, but I know that I'm happy that's not a mechanic in the game, it was retarded to say the least.
What would BW would had look like if blizz would "fix" vulture atack-move,muta-stacking and others?
I don't know, how is it relevant? You aren't comparing muta stacking to holding shift and right clicking a mineral patch, are you?
Don't want to be the "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! THE WORLD WILL END!" guy,but things get catered to casuals. And kotick doesn't give a s..t about the game is not "fun" to watch or that u are spoon fed with everything u need.If the bronze players are happy,they're happy. Yes i know they are the vast majority of the playerbase,but remember,the ppl who will play this game in 4-6 years are not them.
Also something not strictly related to the topic,but somewhat related.When i heard Browder say that not all the expansions will bring new units,because "it will be too hard to balance",i lost most of my hope in Blizz.
To me it looks like you've decided you're going to hate Blizzard and their "casual" baby and now you only need to find reasons to fuel it. Hey, you could always play BW if you prefer it to SC2, I know there's plenty who do.
And Browder said he didn't want to make the MP cluttered with units just for the sake of adding units, nothing more and nothing less. There might be 3 new units for each race, there might not. We have no fucking idea at this point.
On March 01 2011 01:26 Akash wrote: First of all,we must remember that most of the ppl who developed SC 1/SC: BW are not working with blizz anymore (most of them worked for Blizzard North i think).That means the ideas and general tought process who created BW isn't there anymore.
Blizz lost valuable ppl time and time again. Mike Morhaime fired ppl,Kotick fired ppl.But while when Mike Morhaime was CEO,they were also interested in making lots of money,they understood that they way to do that is through quality games.It didn't matter that at first they weren't so noob friendly (SC 1 or WoW),if someone sees his buddy play and thinks it's cool,he will buy the game.
There are some new ones. But most of the team of SC2 is made up out of Blizzard Veterans a lot of them having working on Warcraft 1,2 SC, Diablo, WoW. Then there are some people who worked on Dawn of War, Everquest, etc. So I don't think it's the fault of staff.
Understand that people's mindset can progress and change over the 12 years that was between SC and SC2. Then there's the fact that the game industry evolved from that time to now, games progressively gotten easier and that's just something to get used to. I don't mind if they add casual stuff as long as there's button to switch it off.
so a CEO wants to make money... Keep in mind that blizzard has largely been left alone to devleope and operate as it deems fit. I believe that was a stipulation of there agreement to be bought. There was alot of language in that contract that basically said leave us alone we make great games that make alot of money.
Someone needs a tinfoil hat. Sure, I don't much like Kotick either: I think he's a narcissistic asshat, but he's probably a shrewd CEO and good enough at making money that the stakeholders see no reason to fire him and put someone else in charge of Actiblizz. What I don't think he's doing is forcefully controlling everything in the company to be released prematurely and milked for cash in some huge conspiracy to make money as quickly as possible, rather than bet on lasting value.
As for the whole "casual vs. hardcore" thing: vanilla WoW was fun, sure, but it had retarded stuff in it that, however hardcore you are, were simply retarded: having to run MC months on end to collect the FR gear to be able to kill Ragnaros, let alone start BWL. Then do the same for NR gear was mindnumbing. The PvP grind was horrible (rewarded quantity over quality) and there was plenty of other stuff wrong with the game. I enjoyed it, but the game has definitely gotten more polished through the expansions, despite my own interest waning slowly but surely. Do I think it's a shame that there have been moments in the game where extremely high-level gear was given out for near-free? Sure, but it probably kept a LOT of people playing who would otherwise have quit and for me WoW is still awesome simply because of the number of people playing (even if I hardly play anymore).
As for whether Blizzard is treating SC2 as a cash cow, rather than a product they care for? I don't see any reason to think the latest patch is breaking the game. I personally like the alert for spawn larvae: it really won't make noobs play like pros all of a sudden, but it will help them streamline an important part of Zerg macro a little bit better. Just as protoss have the warp gate button. In fact, a "creep tumor off cooldown" would be rather nifty too! As for fixing balance issues: you can argue for or against the balance fixes, but you can hardly say that because they are fixing obviously broken parts of the game (archon toilet) they are treating it as a cash cow, rather than a quality product. You want to see a game that was released broken and still hasn't been fixed properly? I recommend Civilization 5. SC2 had far far far higher production values to start with and blizzard is fixing new issues as they come up.
On March 01 2011 01:26 Akash wrote: The people who played Vanilla WoW remember how it was in the beginning and how is it now. I'm not trying to turn this into a "casual vs hard core " WoW fight,but lets just say that the game became more and more casual just to atract more people.
wow was never hard, I'm sorry it just wasn't, it was just tedious. All end game raiding is that way in every game.
Lets just say that the same will happen to SC 2. Lets observe the "new stuff"
-Alert for MULE/Chronoboost/Inject Larva? -Hiding losses? -Balancing based on 2v2/3v3/4v4? Pls note that BW wasn't balanced based on 2v2/3v3/4v4. -Nerf every possible "trick" which would rewarded ppl with high APM. That includes the worker "bug" (the one which if u spammed return cargo it would not w8 that amount of time to return the minerals),the burrowed infestor NP (i don't think that would had been game changing,but i think it been talked to death already),the "archon toilet" (this is not something trully APM challenging,but more related to how u can get the MS /archons safely).
-There is a alert for mule/chrono boost/inject larva now? Well i just read that in the 1.3 notes. How is that bad? As it is now there is nothing bad about losing timing on a mule, it's not good to miss chrono boost timing unless you're saving for something specific and missing larva injects is horribad. That's balance. -hiding losses? well i don't agree with it, but blizzard didn't just make this game for the pro scene, it will only stay around if "casuals" play it, Im sorry but that's the cold hard fact. Casuals, in blizzard's eyes, don't need to see their losses, it's the exact opposite of motivational. Me not being pro, but being more than casual I would prefer to see more in depth statistics (% against race as race on what map etc) but that's me /shrug. -what team balancing is going on? looking at 1.3 notes i don't see anything that directly affects 1v1 based on 2v2+ adjustments. I'm not going to get into if the balance changes are needed or not because this isn't the thread for it. -Burrowed infestor NP went against blizzard's balance. Archon toilet isn't hard to do, and it's not very balanced (same with vortex and 6 colossi ready to rape everything)
Also something not strictly related to the topic,but somewhat related.When i heard Browder say that not all the expansions will bring new units,because "it will be too hard to balance",i lost most of my hope in Blizz.
exact quote or it never happened. There would have been a bigger uproar if that was said.
If you don't like Actiblizzard as much as you seem to be putting off, don't buy their game.
On March 01 2011 01:25 lofung wrote: i have been supporting blizzard since WOW TBC and it has become disgusting very lately. it isnt even profit maximizing. they are just trying to suck out all your money like EA
I've been supporting blizzard since WC1, and everything was great up until they sold out to activision, that is the defining downhill point from what I've seen. I still have faith in them to a point, and I have high hopes for them in the future, as long as they don't find themselves being taken over by executive assholes wanting quick money grabs so they can cash out.
Hopefully their data analysis team or whatever will notice that I bought starcraft II and have not payed for a month of WoW since, and hopefully this will make them decide that players like non-subscription based games better, and not that SCII should be subscription based so they get more of my money.
But trying to squeeze money out of customers is what business is all about. What really makes me hate Kotick is the way he has treated his own employees, especially the Infinity Ward guys.
As a call of duty fan, I know all too well the great deeds of one Bobby Kotick. If I could put a face on greed and deception in this country it would be Mr. Kotick. Its not enough to have 5 million dollar mansion and 10 cars, he wants a 50 million dollar mansion and 100 cars!
When will these soulless corporate executives understand that developers need to have fun and be able to do their own thing to make great games? Thank god for indie devopers.
Interesting to see this thread get bumped, especially since I was just recently thinking about doing some personal research into the whole Activision Blizzard merger deal and timeline myself. Perhaps someone on TL is reading my mind lol.
On one hand, it's worrisome to see Blizzard be hand in hand with one of the worst corporations in the industry. On the other hand, the recent demise of Infinity Ward and the Guitar Hero franchise may have some influence on Activision's future decisions, and perhaps they may be less greedy when trying to expand their franchises too much.
On March 01 2011 02:45 eviltomahawk wrote: On one hand, it's worrisome to see Blizzard be hand in hand with one of the worst corporations in the industry. On the other hand, the recent demise of Infinity Ward and the Guitar Hero franchise may have some influence on Activision's future decisions, and perhaps they may be less greedy when trying to expand their franchises too much.
Yeah you may as well wish for world peace and the end of poverty to happen tomorrow, it's more likely than Activision becoming anything more than a money grab.
I haven't played Cata personally but from what I hear it isn't a cakewalk, ditto for ICC. Sure, any tard can grind some heroics and get purples but you still need a fucking big investment to get the best of the best shit.
Well,in Cata,they managed to finally "give to the caesar what's for the caesar".Meaning that hardcore ppl get heroic raids,very hard.And casual folk get they're free epics.So in the end everyone wins. But SC 2 it's at the point which WOTLK was,meaning that was catered specifically for casuals (after TBC which was "pain in the ass" hard).Blizz realized that if they don't give pro people a bone,the game will loose it's call for the masses (the good guilds farmed the raids,not the casual ones,i mean the heroic difficulty raids).
-New players won't be intimidated by stats, whatever. Helping new players enjoy SC2 isn't a bad thing, whatever you might think.
You have a point here,if the ladder dies,nobody will like that.
I don't know, how is it relevant? You aren't comparing muta stacking to holding shift and right clicking a mineral patch, are you?
I was comparing it to the Burrow spam on the Infestor so u can NP while burrowed .
And Browder said he didn't want to make the MP cluttered with units just for the sake of adding units, nothing more and nothing less. There might be 3 new units for each race, there might not. We have no fucking idea at this point.
Well how can u make a game cluttered,when already the game lacks diversity ? Instead of making 1 expansion without units and another with 3(he said that 1 of them might lack any units) ,should't they add 1 unit per expansion ? (i know we don't the slighest clue,but the lack of diversity kind of irks me).
Understand that people's mindset can progress and change over the 12 years that was between SC and SC2. Then there's the fact that the game industry evolved from that time to now, games progressively gotten easier and that's just something to get used to. I don't mind if they add casual stuff as long as there's button to switch it off.
"If" there is a buttow to switch it off .
Hey, you could always play BW if you prefer it to SC2, I know there's plenty who do.
If i wanted to play BW would i had still posted here? But when u like something,u want it as good as possible no ? I have no beef with SC 2 (because the game doesn't design itself),and not much with the designers (in the past patches they proved they aren't as dum ppl think them),but more with Kotick. As a gamer,idealistically i would like the games to be made for gamers,not for the pockets of shareholders,but thats more of an ideal.Just like Blizz did them,years ago.
They aren't going to stop. You must realize that their target audience is one of the easiest audiences to manipulate. Teenagers, and men with low self-esteem that can't get dates. Although IW and Guitar Hero are declining, it's not going to be difficult to come up with a new franchise that will have a good run of 3-7 years that will garner a large population of fanatics.
It's a never-ending cycle of some soulless company exploiting tasteless individuals.
On March 01 2011 02:45 eviltomahawk wrote: On one hand, it's worrisome to see Blizzard be hand in hand with one of the worst corporations in the industry. On the other hand, the recent demise of Infinity Ward and the Guitar Hero franchise may have some influence on Activision's future decisions, and perhaps they may be less greedy when trying to expand their franchises too much.
Well Actiblizzard is still a business. It's greed to us, and to the rest of the world, but to the majority share holders and Kotick it's just business. He is doing what it takes to make the shareholders money and thus get money himself. The man does not care about the industry and has 0 passion for gaming, but he knows how to make money *points at CoD franchise and Guitar hero* rhythm based games sales are going down. It was a good time for them and harmonix to be sold off. That's why despite him being in league with some of the worst villains of all time he is still there. He makes the shareholders happy. I still do what I can to support Blizzard in their endeavors, but i generally steer clear of Activision these days on principle.
Also something not strictly related to the topic,but somewhat related.When i heard Browder say that not all the expansions will bring new units,because "it will be too hard to balance",i lost most of my hope in Blizz.
i wish to have the quote if you could.
In an interview with G4tv.
He did not say it would be "too hard to balance", he said the game would be bloated and have pointless unit overlaps if they added 3 units each expansion.
We don't want to just add another three units to the game for this expansion, three units to the game for the next expansion. That would be a very bloated game for us at that point and the chances that some of those units would be duplicates of other units that already exist in the game in one form or another would be extremely high. So we're looking at the different solutions. We don't know for sure yet, but there will definitely be fixes and changes and various improvements to the multiplayer experience.
Also something not strictly related to the topic,but somewhat related.When i heard Browder say that not all the expansions will bring new units,because "it will be too hard to balance",i lost most of my hope in Blizz.
i wish to have the quote if you could.
In an interview with G4tv.
He did not say it would be "too hard to balance", he said the game would be bloated and have pointless unit overlaps if they added 3 units each expansion.
We don't want to just add another three units to the game for this expansion, three units to the game for the next expansion. That would be a very bloated game for us at that point and the chances that some of those units would be duplicates of other units that already exist in the game in one form or another would be extremely high. So we're looking at the different solutions. We don't know for sure yet, but there will definitely be fixes and changes and various improvements to the multiplayer experience.
thats so disappointing. imho zerg at least need an siege unit to themselves into the terran base besides the useless nydus even if the add is uneven accross races. i heard that they are getting the infested bunker. i sincerely hope that they dun disappoint us again.
On March 01 2011 06:36 labbe wrote: Activision is a piece of shit company. I have never bought a game from them (not including Blizzard games here) and i never will.
IMO, MW1 was one of the most fun multiplayer shooters I've ever played. Though I've never touched MW2 and never will.
I wonder when the OP will get fixed. Activision merged with Vivendi Games and formed Activision Blizzard, the parent company of Blizzard Entertainment.
I think this might be the dawn of a dark ages for gaming.
We can't stop it... these guys only respond to profits, and theyl'l continue to get profits as every 12 year old continues to buy Starcraft 3 and Diablo 4, and every year theyl'l just release a new one with very slight differences and continue to make money.
It's just that kids are really easily persuaded to buy new things. It happened to toys, (remember that one simpson's episode about the new malibu stacy?) and it'l happen to gaming.
Slowly more and more gaming companies will fall to this trend of mass producing low quality sequels (like Matel mass produces dolls with a new hat every few months)...
Even Indie developers won't be able to stand this, once an Indie game gets far enough off the ground activision or some other greedy comapny will buy it and convert it into another mass re-produced piece of junk with a new expansion released every few months.
I think our future rests in forming community made games, forming a new ICCUP for SC2 is a good first step, otherwise the community will be split into 3 or more groups (due to expansions), and just like units when the communit goes below a certain critical mass it dies. Divided we fall.
Someone make an ICCUP server that is constantly running the most balanced patch with all new units from expansions, so we can congregate there.
On March 10 2011 14:40 Cloesd wrote: I think this might be the dawn of a dark ages for gaming.
We can't stop it... these guys only respond to profits, and theyl'l continue to get profits as every 12 year old continues to buy Starcraft 3 and Diablo 4, and every 6 years theyl'l just release a new one with very slight differences and continue to make money.
fix'd. But seriously, have a hard time seeing the basis for this argument. Starcraft 2 is very different from Starcraft BW, Diablo II appears to be as different from Diablo as it is from Diablo III. Not to mention that all of these games are very spread out with the largest criticism most people have is that they take too long to make them, unlike every other studio that spits them out as fast as possible.
On March 01 2011 06:51 maybenexttime wrote: I wonder when the OP will get fixed. Activision merged with Vivendi Games and formed Activision Blizzard, the parent company of Blizzard Entertainment.
The OP hasn't posted since last summer, so I doubt that he will return to edit this post. A mod might do it, but I doubt it since the post isn't of the utmost importance in the grand scheme of things.
On March 01 2011 02:40 RevRich wrote: As a call of duty fan, I know all too well the great deeds of one Bobby Kotick. If I could put a face on greed and deception in this country it would be Mr. Kotick. Its not enough to have 5 million dollar mansion and 10 cars, he wants a 50 million dollar mansion and 100 cars!
Ya I completely agree with this. For most people you would think there would become a point where they get completely rich and would then like to focus on their work for the passion... trying to improve it. Not for him though. He doesn't care about video games at all and his only passion is making more and more money.
Also something not strictly related to the topic,but somewhat related.When i heard Browder say that not all the expansions will bring new units,because "it will be too hard to balance",i lost most of my hope in Blizz.
i wish to have the quote if you could.
In an interview with G4tv.
He did not say it would be "too hard to balance", he said the game would be bloated and have pointless unit overlaps if they added 3 units each expansion.
We don't want to just add another three units to the game for this expansion, three units to the game for the next expansion. That would be a very bloated game for us at that point and the chances that some of those units would be duplicates of other units that already exist in the game in one form or another would be extremely high. So we're looking at the different solutions. We don't know for sure yet, but there will definitely be fixes and changes and various improvements to the multiplayer experience.
That's very disappointing to hear... and I don't quite agree that it is even a valid point. You can argue that they shouldn't put the lurker in the game because it will fulfill a similar role as banelings... but do you really think they still wouldn't be a great addition just to spice the game play up a bit? Would that not be worth it?
Regardless... even having 2 very similar units to choose from to counter another unit would be good even if it were as simple as one being slightly more powerful and slightly more costly at a higher tech than the other. It would change up timings.
Beyond that going back to the lurker and baneling since they claimed those 2 units overlapped in roles, the mechanics for both units are very different. Banelings could still be used to drop on minerals or a way of making more use of your zerglings when a terran player runs out with MM while lurkers could take the roll as a more typical counter to MM.
Don't dwell too much on the exact details of what I am saying when it comes to Banelings and Lurkers, but am I really wrong in saying that having 2 units that fulfill a similar role would still be great and not make the game feel too bloated? I feel there isn't even close to enough units yet. I feel like 3 for T and P... and maybe 4 or 5 for Zerg would make it much more interesting without it feeling like there are too many choices.
Honestly, I can't really blame Mr. Kotick for how he handles his business, but I do think he is quite short sighted and that he doesn't realize that gamers act more like a fandom and community, watching development and progression of the central part of the 'fandom' (IE, developers and publishers of video games) as opposed to people who just go out and buy... I don't know, things like laundry powder because they need it, it works and couldn't give a damn how it's made or how the companies involved are treated.
I don't think Bobby Kotick actually understands that about video game players. We're not apathetic consumer drones, we're much like any other fandom, perfect example would be something like the Star Wars or Star Trek fandoms. Yes, they go out and purchase tickets to Star Wars/Trek movies, apparel, video games and the like making them consumers, but if something is done which degrades the quality of the focus of the fandom, such as say an utterly horrendous movie, the fandom will communicate with each other and likely will publicly denouce it. The same holds true with Video Gamers. We're not as tight knit as other fandoms, but we are still a losely held community with one thing in common: We like our video games.
So naturally, when you get an uninformed CEO taking over one of the biggest, most central corperations in the industry without aclimatizing to how things are done, he's going to ruffle some serious feathers. I can't fault him or bash on his business practices when it comes down to it, I begrudgingly admit he's good at his job and his first and foremost priority is to please his investors and shareholders, which he does a fine job of doing. However, I will say that his handling of certain particular cases such as the Infinity Ward case over Modern Warfare 2 aren't acceptable and he needs to answer for his actions in such cases in civil court.
TL;DR version: He's doing his job, but he needs to be more in tune with his consumer base because they are closer to a fandom than a bunch of apathetic consumers, meaning we are carefully watching everything he is doing.
The one thing CEO's of large publishing/development Empires in this industry needs to watch for is their client base to begin with. Gamers are a large, connected group that is largly vocal and will call you on BS when we see it.
Granted, the CoD/Madden portion (their core, I would assume) isn't this way, but with Blizzard and their IP's, it is this way, and can and would bring down an empire.
Though I can imagine that Morhime largely tells Kotick to go suck an egg.
As a call of duty fan, I know all too well the great deeds of one Bobby Kotick. If I could put a face on greed and deception in this country it would be Mr. Kotick. Its not enough to have 5 million dollar mansion and 10 cars, he wants a 50 million dollar mansion and 100 cars!
As the CEO of a corporation, Bobby Kotick is legally required to maximize profits for his company. Allow me to repeat that: legally required. As in, the board of directors can sue him if he doesn't.
Obviously, CEOs are allowed various leeway on their choice of tactics for maximizing profits. But this nonsensical BS about wanting "a 50 million dollar mansion and 100 cars" is exactly that: BS.
am I really wrong in saying that having 2 units that fulfill a similar role would still be great and not make the game feel too bloated?
Well, Reapers are essentially unused because Hellions can do pretty much what Reapers can do. If you have two units that do the same thing, the better one will be used preferentially.
In SC1, Scouts and Corsairs had the same function: killing air units. But since Scouts sucked at it, and Corsairs were awesome, people built Corsairs and Scouts were one of the least used units ever.
Remember: in SC1, they had about as many units as SC2, but quite a few of them were unused or used so rarely as to be essentially nonexistent. The Queens Nest was nothing more than something to take up space between a Lair and a Hive.
There is a certain limit to the number of possible units you can have that have unique roles and specific reasons for existence. If you gave each race 20 units, players would still just use 5-8 of them. Which ever units were the best would be used and the rest would be ignored.
However, I will say that his handling of certain particular cases such as the Infinity Ward case over Modern Warfare 2 aren't acceptable and he needs to answer for his actions in such cases in civil court.
And what in particular was so bad about the Infinity Ward thing?
As I understand it, the rift started when Activision did something entirely reasonable. Activision wants to do the whole "yearly exploitation of franchises" thing. However, IW can't crank out a CoD game every year. So Activision decided to spread the license around. IW would get a CoD game every two years, and another Activision studio would fill in the gaps.
This timeshare arrangement makes a lot of sense. Each development studio on the CoD license would get actual time to make a quality game. The usual problem with the whole "yearly exploitation of franchises" thing is that a year isn't long enough to make a quality game, so you wind up with yearly crap. Giving each studio two years would allow quality to be maintained while keeping up the yearly flow of titles.
But Infinity Ward didn't like that. Rather than being adults about the situation, they childishly did everything they could to keep Activision from doing this. Eventually, the IW studio heads got fed up and wanted to jump ship. And that's when Activision started pulling their own shenanigans.
On March 13 2011 10:13 NicolBolas wrote: And what in particular was so bad about the Infinity Ward thing?
As I understand it, the rift started when Activision did something entirely reasonable. Activision wants to do the whole "yearly exploitation of franchises" thing. However, IW can't crank out a CoD game every year. So Activision decided to spread the license around. IW would get a CoD game every two years, and another Activision studio would fill in the gaps.
This timeshare arrangement makes a lot of sense. Each development studio on the CoD license would get actual time to make a quality game. The usual problem with the whole "yearly exploitation of franchises" thing is that a year isn't long enough to make a quality game, so you wind up with yearly crap. Giving each studio two years would allow quality to be maintained while keeping up the yearly flow of titles.
But Infinity Ward didn't like that. Rather than being adults about the situation, they childishly did everything they could to keep Activision from doing this. Eventually, the IW studio heads got fed up and wanted to jump ship. And that's when Activision started pulling their own shenanigans.
Developers don't like it when their baby gets loaned around. For example, one of the main reasons Bungie left microsoft was Halo Wars. Bungie felt very uncomfortable about having their IP being used without their control. So while Activision was allowed legally to do what they did, it doesn't make it any less rude and creates unneeded friction between the studio and the publisher.
As a call of duty fan, I know all too well the great deeds of one Bobby Kotick. If I could put a face on greed and deception in this country it would be Mr. Kotick. Its not enough to have 5 million dollar mansion and 10 cars, he wants a 50 million dollar mansion and 100 cars!
As the CEO of a corporation, Bobby Kotick is legally required to maximize profits for his company. Allow me to repeat that: legally required. As in, the board of directors can sue him if he doesn't.
Obviously, CEOs are allowed various leeway on their choice of tactics for maximizing profits. But this nonsensical BS about wanting "a 50 million dollar mansion and 100 cars" is exactly that: BS.
Look at what he's saying though. Up until "September 15, 2009" in OP I was thinking that it wasn't so bad. Honestly it wouldn't suprise me if a creative industry like gaming could use some restrictions.
But looking at what he's saying everything points towards efficiency = mass production = profit. Such a standpoint would really worry me if I considered buying stock in the company. A corporate culture like that doesn't mean that Kotick wants more cars, but the cars part does highlight the same stereotype that he seems to abide by.
And I expect to find out that people have said stupid things and that things can be taken out of context... but this is just too much.
Anyway.. I guess he will run the company in the ground or get fired sooner or later. I just hope SC2 doesn't get too affected by everything.
damn. i just now read this. i feel robbed. big money taking away creativity, and why are they able to? because there's a trillion billion buyers out there who don't even stop to think what power they have and execute when making a game purchase. this is why i only buy one game every 3 months or so.
every game you buy needs to be a quality decision, because you may just be giving the asshole who is laying off your favourite subdeveloper's studio some more money to justify his cause because the numbers say he's right in doing asshole management.
As an avid player of starcraft, I really wish that this was stickied. This actually came up on the bnet forums, and since most people avoid it like the plague, I'd like to ask that this be stickied somewhere. Why?
People argue, either intuitively or with some prior knowledge or feelings on the method of business, about whether HoTS and subsequent games will be any good or should not be bought. People also continue to discuss balance. Bobby Kotick Has here, clearly defined, the reasons a game will be a carrot and stick, and why some things such as balance issues may take a while to be addressed. I told people in TL chat in sc2 that Blizzard is owned by Acti and has to do as Acti wants if Acti decides to pull rank on any subject within, and people just didn't seem to believe it. There was recently a blog about the MW3 series and how its basically the same game repackaged over and over with little to nothing new and worthwhile about it, that they are basically expansions priced as full fledged games.
What the author did not make mention of is that SC2 is basically owned by the same people who made the same deicisions. If we read this blog, we can clearly see that BK has a list of demands on how to produce and deploy products that clearly shows int he CoD series. Break it down into parts, make people pay more for the full game.
I think it's important for people to be aware of this level of control over the product when considering why and how Sc2 changes, and is released to the general public.
I am actually shocked reading this. I truly hope every member of team liquid reads this and gains a general understanding of the incentives and motivations felt by people running activision-blizzard, or any corporation for that matter.
This is a great example of management misunderstanding their market.
On December 19 2011 07:12 Humanfails wrote: As an avid player of starcraft, I really wish that this was stickied. This actually came up on the bnet forums, and since most people avoid it like the plague, I'd like to ask that this be stickied somewhere. Why?
People argue, either intuitively or with some prior knowledge or feelings on the method of business, about whether HoTS and subsequent games will be any good or should not be bought. People also continue to discuss balance. Bobby Kotick Has here, clearly defined, the reasons a game will be a carrot and stick, and why some things such as balance issues may take a while to be addressed. I told people in TL chat in sc2 that Blizzard is owned by Acti and has to do as Acti wants if Acti decides to pull rank on any subject within, and people just didn't seem to believe it. There was recently a blog about the MW3 series and how its basically the same game repackaged over and over with little to nothing new and worthwhile about it, that they are basically expansions priced as full fledged games.
What the author did not make mention of is that SC2 is basically owned by the same people who made the same deicisions. If we read this blog, we can clearly see that BK has a list of demands on how to produce and deploy products that clearly shows int he CoD series. Break it down into parts, make people pay more for the full game.
I think it's important for people to be aware of this level of control over the product when considering why and how Sc2 changes, and is released to the general public.
Please sticky?
I think you missed this : The views expressed by this thread are not the official views of TeamLiquid.net and its staff. This is a forum thread and not official news.
Blizzard just does as Blizzard has always done. Blizzard set out on this path long before Activision became involved, only back then it was explained as "Blizzard is stupid." and now ActiVision is a convenient scapegoat. Not that I like Activision at all, I don't, I'm really not a fan of the vast majority of their games. CoD for instance bores me to tears. About a year after the merger first happened, and after a lot of things were blamed on Activision there was an interview with one of the Blizzard employees that's probably still on YouTube where they said they haven't heard or seen anything from Activision and Activision just kind of lets them do their own thing because they know what they're doing.
Yes Activision most definitely could pull rank on Blizzard at some point and screw everything up, but they haven't yet, and as long as Blizzard continues to do well without outside influence Activision really doesn't have any reason to intervene. I'd very much like to say that Activision is at fault for anything I don't like in Blizzard games, but I know better than that. It's just Blizzard being Blizzard, sadly. Believe me, SC2 hasn't gotten the COD treatment yet, and if it does it'll be pretty frickin horrible.
It kills me that I absolutely love Blizzard and ALL of their games since the late 90s and yet their profits go to the one man I hate. I really really really really really really really really really despise Bobby Kotick with a burning passion
The funniest thing to me about the OP is all the attention paid to stuff like Paid Name Changes and "Premium" user maps with only a portion going to the map makers as though it was only a matter of time before Bobby Kotick personally charged you 5 cents for every ladder game.
Oh wait, it turns out that even when half of r/starcraft seems to be screaming for paid name changes, Blizzard hasn't added them. There's also no map market. I can't think of any additional charges to be found in SC2 - you paid for Wings of Liberty, you got the whole game.
Kotick's an ass and everything for sure but a year on from release any reasonable belief that he had or maintains major plans to force Blizzard to suck their customers dry must be accompanied by relief that he has been fantastically inefficient at executing them.
(either that or people should stop being so paranoid).
On December 19 2011 12:54 windsupernova wrote: Wow, I remember reading this years ago. Did people really have to bump it? its some facts with a lot of speculations and fearmongering.
I mean, we should be aware of this but OP seemed really paranoid about stuff lol its not nearly as bad as people say.
Speculation?The guy even dug out the sources dude.
On December 19 2011 07:12 Humanfails wrote: As an avid player of starcraft, I really wish that this was stickied. This actually came up on the bnet forums, and since most people avoid it like the plague, I'd like to ask that this be stickied somewhere. Why?
People argue, either intuitively or with some prior knowledge or feelings on the method of business, about whether HoTS and subsequent games will be any good or should not be bought. People also continue to discuss balance. Bobby Kotick Has here, clearly defined, the reasons a game will be a carrot and stick, and why some things such as balance issues may take a while to be addressed. I told people in TL chat in sc2 that Blizzard is owned by Acti and has to do as Acti wants if Acti decides to pull rank on any subject within, and people just didn't seem to believe it. There was recently a blog about the MW3 series and how its basically the same game repackaged over and over with little to nothing new and worthwhile about it, that they are basically expansions priced as full fledged games.
What the author did not make mention of is that SC2 is basically owned by the same people who made the same deicisions. If we read this blog, we can clearly see that BK has a list of demands on how to produce and deploy products that clearly shows int he CoD series. Break it down into parts, make people pay more for the full game.
I think it's important for people to be aware of this level of control over the product when considering why and how Sc2 changes, and is released to the general public.
Please sticky?
I think you missed this : The views expressed by this thread are not the official views of TeamLiquid.net and its staff. This is a forum thread and not official news.
Why would they sticky this thread?
Stickies are for important and very influential information that people should know about. Even a sticky does not have to be conforming to the personal beliefs or views of the TL staff or TL.net.
That does not mean that individuals don't need to know what Kotick actually and factually professes and believes. It also has a bearing on a lot of threads that have since been opened as to "Is HoTS worth buying", etc. If this thread was stickied people could decide this for themselves without opening a new thread, based on more evidence than zero. This is something I would want to know about if I were someone who didn't already know. It's important. Firing all the people that work in a company right before splitting profits? Think about it. that means new people have to be brought in to work on things. This affects how games like sc2 and CoD are made, marketed, and released. It affects the quality. Teamliquid's main source of users ciome here for starcraft. Therefore TL does have a stake in putting this out there because it affects starcraft very directly.
The question is why would you not sticky it, and let a thread die that could answer a lot of questions that other people will create threads for in the future? Remember, sc2 is 3 games, so people will have the HoTs threads again with LoTV.
This guy makes me sick. Why the hell did blizzard join up with this...thing. Someone better develop an open-souce starcraft like game because Im sure as hell not buying sc3 if things are heading this direction.
On December 19 2011 07:12 Humanfails wrote: As an avid player of starcraft, I really wish that this was stickied. This actually came up on the bnet forums, and since most people avoid it like the plague, I'd like to ask that this be stickied somewhere. Why?
People argue, either intuitively or with some prior knowledge or feelings on the method of business, about whether HoTS and subsequent games will be any good or should not be bought. People also continue to discuss balance. Bobby Kotick Has here, clearly defined, the reasons a game will be a carrot and stick, and why some things such as balance issues may take a while to be addressed. I told people in TL chat in sc2 that Blizzard is owned by Acti and has to do as Acti wants if Acti decides to pull rank on any subject within, and people just didn't seem to believe it. There was recently a blog about the MW3 series and how its basically the same game repackaged over and over with little to nothing new and worthwhile about it, that they are basically expansions priced as full fledged games.
What the author did not make mention of is that SC2 is basically owned by the same people who made the same deicisions. If we read this blog, we can clearly see that BK has a list of demands on how to produce and deploy products that clearly shows int he CoD series. Break it down into parts, make people pay more for the full game.
I think it's important for people to be aware of this level of control over the product when considering why and how Sc2 changes, and is released to the general public.
Please sticky?
I think you missed this : The views expressed by this thread are not the official views of TeamLiquid.net and its staff. This is a forum thread and not official news.
Why would they sticky this thread?
Stickies are for important and very influential information that people should know about. Even a sticky does not have to be conforming to the personal beliefs or views of the TL staff or TL.net.
That does not mean that individuals don't need to know what Kotick actually and factually professes and believes. It also has a bearing on a lot of threads that have since been opened as to "Is HoTS worth buying", etc. If this thread was stickied people could decide this for themselves without opening a new thread, based on more evidence than zero. This is something I would want to know about if I were someone who didn't already know. It's important. Firing all the people that work in a company right before splitting profits? Think about it. that means new people have to be brought in to work on things. This affects how games like sc2 and CoD are made, marketed, and released. It affects the quality. Teamliquid's main source of users ciome here for starcraft. Therefore TL does have a stake in putting this out there because it affects starcraft very directly.
The question is why would you not sticky it, and let a thread die that could answer a lot of questions that other people will create threads for in the future? Remember, sc2 is 3 games, so people will have the HoTs threads again with LoTV.
So we should just sticky some incredibly biased post just because it might be informational, regardless of any blatant skew or agenda? Not a good idea. That would be like the government subsidizing Pepsi and taxing Coca-Cola advertisements.
Yes obviously Blizzard-Activision is the root of all evil. Next week they will definitly charge us per ladder game, and they will probably start to release a game a year like CoD does.
/sarcasm
Seriously? Has anyone paid a single thing for Sc2 after buying the game initially? I don't think Blizzard is stupid enough to believe that would work with their players.
Trust me whatever you think they know exactly who buys SC games and what they are willing to pay. Maybe at some point they will get a system online where you can "buy" maps, but anything beyond that is not only unlikely but I'd say flat out impossible.
No one would buy a RTS game with a monthly subscription, when they could play a ton of others for free. If Blizzard started to throw out low quality games at a yearly rate, they'd loose their fanbase within a year. Currently as long as the product they produce is anywhere close to polished (and they are VERY good at polishing their stuff) it sells. Why would they go and kill the Goose which lais Golden Eggs?
Sometimes i wish the internet would be a bit less paranoid.
And even more i wish people would leave old threads buried and dead without bumping them needlessly.
always known he was a scumbag, everyone who follows the industry somewhat knows that... best thing we can do is just not to buy activisions products. Kotick would be in serious shit if the next CoD completely tanked, since their entire company rides on that 1 franchise.
On December 19 2011 07:12 Humanfails wrote: As an avid player of starcraft, I really wish that this was stickied. This actually came up on the bnet forums, and since most people avoid it like the plague, I'd like to ask that this be stickied somewhere. Why?
People argue, either intuitively or with some prior knowledge or feelings on the method of business, about whether HoTS and subsequent games will be any good or should not be bought. People also continue to discuss balance. Bobby Kotick Has here, clearly defined, the reasons a game will be a carrot and stick, and why some things such as balance issues may take a while to be addressed. I told people in TL chat in sc2 that Blizzard is owned by Acti and has to do as Acti wants if Acti decides to pull rank on any subject within, and people just didn't seem to believe it. There was recently a blog about the MW3 series and how its basically the same game repackaged over and over with little to nothing new and worthwhile about it, that they are basically expansions priced as full fledged games.
What the author did not make mention of is that SC2 is basically owned by the same people who made the same deicisions. If we read this blog, we can clearly see that BK has a list of demands on how to produce and deploy products that clearly shows int he CoD series. Break it down into parts, make people pay more for the full game.
I think it's important for people to be aware of this level of control over the product when considering why and how Sc2 changes, and is released to the general public.
Please sticky?
I think you missed this : The views expressed by this thread are not the official views of TeamLiquid.net and its staff. This is a forum thread and not official news.
Why would they sticky this thread?
Stickies are for important and very influential information that people should know about. Even a sticky does not have to be conforming to the personal beliefs or views of the TL staff or TL.net.
That does not mean that individuals don't need to know what Kotick actually and factually professes and believes. It also has a bearing on a lot of threads that have since been opened as to "Is HoTS worth buying", etc. If this thread was stickied people could decide this for themselves without opening a new thread, based on more evidence than zero. This is something I would want to know about if I were someone who didn't already know. It's important. Firing all the people that work in a company right before splitting profits? Think about it. that means new people have to be brought in to work on things. This affects how games like sc2 and CoD are made, marketed, and released. It affects the quality. Teamliquid's main source of users ciome here for starcraft. Therefore TL does have a stake in putting this out there because it affects starcraft very directly.
The question is why would you not sticky it, and let a thread die that could answer a lot of questions that other people will create threads for in the future? Remember, sc2 is 3 games, so people will have the HoTs threads again with LoTV.
So we should just sticky some incredibly biased post just because it might be informational, regardless of any blatant skew or agenda? Not a good idea. That would be like the government subsidizing Pepsi and taxing Coca-Cola advertisements.
I would hope people can rub the shit off of any argument or story to discern its factual worth. That they can decide for themselves as rational individuals with a brain, etc etc...
The real deal here is the quoted line of what Kotick actually said, word for word.. Stuff like taking the fun out of game making intentionally, reducing it to getting sales, etc. He actually said these things. If he didn't the article could be sued for slander, and activision's lawyers would crush the person who wrote it, and it would no longer exist here on TL. It doesn't much matter how skewed the OP is or the article's personal voice is, what matters is that people can see what agenda BK has in mind when creating a game and driving his workers, and how he does it. remember, he fired employees right before they were going to get paid their shares. And hired replacements. This is unethical business practice at best. And we're wanting to buy their products. Plese don't consider this too sensationalistic or unworthy to be stickied, since we come here for news on SC2, a product of Activision and Bob Kotick.
On December 19 2011 13:21 Tula wrote: oh dear god not this stuff again....
Yes obviously Blizzard-Activision is the root of all evil. Next week they will definitly charge us per ladder game, and they will probably start to release a game a year like CoD does.
/sarcasm
Seriously? Has anyone paid a single thing for Sc2 after buying the game initially? I don't think Blizzard is stupid enough to believe that would work with their players.
Trust me whatever you think they know exactly who buys SC games and what they are willing to pay. Maybe at some point they will get a system online where you can "buy" maps, but anything beyond that is not only unlikely but I'd say flat out impossible.
No one would buy a RTS game with a monthly subscription, when they could play a ton of others for free. If Blizzard started to throw out low quality games at a yearly rate, they'd loose their fanbase within a year. Currently as long as the product they produce is anywhere close to polished (and they are VERY good at polishing their stuff) it sells. Why would they go and kill the Goose which lais Golden Eggs?
Sometimes i wish the internet would be a bit less paranoid.
And even more i wish people would leave old threads buried and dead without bumping them needlessly.
you honestly dont see it moving that way? name changes, a service that would take 1 hour at most to create, has not been implemented despite the fact that, as owners of COD, they found value in allowing clan tags for players on it. The authenticator to protect your account actually costs you money.
If any company threw out low quality games at high volume, they'd die. Thats bad business from any standpoint and I don't know why you would even say that.. The best business is to pay the least in production (which is why slave children make the sneakers we buy from U.S. companies), and charge as much as can reasonably be expected for the largest percentage of the customer base you can get.
The end goal of capitalism, in the long run, is for one person to have all the money, while everyone else bought all the commodities. I really get annoyed when people call it paranoia. Its simply the nature of how the machine operates. put out the cheapest product for the most profits. If the "polish", as you put it, is cheaper to do, even if the ratio of polish to substance is 10:1, companies will go for the "polish" over substance every single time. Thats called being a business. When a business gets too big, it actually becomes like the titanic. It's very immune to pissing off small numbers of users, as long as fanboys and others continue buying their product on the basis of hype or "polish". So it will appear to be a strong and successful company and perhaps actually be so. The bigger it is the harder it falls. What a company like this cant stand is everyone getting fed up and buying another product or simply completely abstaining.
That is where PR comes in. There's a thread floating around of an interview with one of the people from blizz, who's name I currently forget, but he basically talks about protoss and other balance issues, and most replies to the TL thread are "X sure knows how to talk politics, say a bunch of stuff and actually say nothing at all". PR. An ounce of good PR is worth more than a pound of good game design.
Honestly, i love SCII, but i would easily just go back to playing tf2 and other shooters like CS:S and CS:GO later this year. Then DotA will come out and i'd be set without SCII if it went away. I'm not paying a monthly fee for the game, its not worth THAT much, and that would kill almost all types of E-Sports as it would no longer be as profitable. I forsee bliz making some changes there, if they want to milk their customers, they have to do it by giving them what they want, we are like any other base except we call BS much faster.
they should look at Valve in awe of a company that knows what they are doing, makes good games consistently and doesnt intend on turning the games industry into a cash cow.
Thankfully, this Kotick guy is old. Hopefully he will catch a heart attack or something very soon.