Activision CEO: We Need to Fix Our Hardcore Reputation
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
I am pretty certain the game is finished for a while now considering release in few days and there was even leaked video of of some Korean guy opening the collectioners edition box. How legit it was i have no idea, but it was there.John Funk said:
Games with online gameplay as one of biggest assets rarely are really finished. Its always constant work on balance tweaks and changing those little numbers like build time from 35 seconds to 37 seconds back and forth every month.
I think the whole idea just ruins the competitive community, and i dare not to even mention poor Aussies stuck in Eastern region. It also makes ladder ranking wonky, since being #1 in region may as well mean you are not even in platinum league in other. Well okay, maybe you will be in plat, but no guarantee of being among top10.
I'm also quite sure that from technical point of view it shouldn't be that much hassle, payment options are usually just handled by the login servers when you register to battle.net, or any other service on that matter. Later the game just needs to check every so often if it ran out or not. Game server itself shouldn't have to be involved in that calculation at all. Of course, no one knows how Blizzard actually coded it, but i doubt it would take them half a year to make it possible.
It's more business decision than technical one.
Beat the shit out of Kotick and post pictures in the Internet.
Also, dedicated servers and back to state-of-art games like CoD4, instead of moneymoneymoneysuckass CoD6.
Also, dedicated servers and back to state-of-art games like CoD4, instead of moneymoneymoneysuckass CoD6.
AC10 said:
Er, considering I just downloaded a patch on the beta last night? Since SC2 is primarily an online game, I have no doubt that they'll be working on it up until the moment it goes live. (And, as you said, afterward).Keava said:
I don't doubt it's probably a fairly easy fix once they do it - along with chat channels - but they're almost certainly focused on launch right now, and trying to cross their fingers and hope nothing explodes.
Right, because game companies certainly pander to hardcore gamers more than casuals...seriously? Where have you been? Have you been living under a rock since the release of the Nintendo Wii? If anything game companies have been alienating hardcore gamers with pathetic shovelware and motion controls.The Great JT said:
OT: Impossible task, Kotick is an asshole. /thread
Look under your chair!Roboto said:
WTF I got pong when theguy to my right gets a full 360 slim sytem?
The girl to my left just got a full PS3 slim pack...
It is all about the delivery of the games and the customer service until he can prove his words with actions they are hollow.
I am thinking that we really need to ellect an Ophra for video games. Maybe a first lady from the USA or a member of The Royal family? I am open to suggestions, then I will send an email.
I get confused when people speak of the "hardcore gaming audience". What exactly qualifies someone as a "hardcore gamer": a collection of varied games and knowledge of gaming, or asshole elitists; typically the kind talking about how *insert BioWare game here* is the best game ever and how *insert console game here* is the worst piece of trash that has ever existed, EVER?
Because, the way I see it. If you fit into the first category, you dont have a problem selling the games. Guitar Hero and Call of Duty are the only things you need to plaster on the box, and it sells. Your problem is with quality control: you rush your games, and dont bother to listen to the community. And when you DO listen to the community, you listen to the prattling 12 year olds on the forum, that dont represent the core gaming audience.
If your applying for the second position, then stop. The type of "hardcore" gamer you're thinking of is a snooty crowd; that will claim to hate your game even if they play it constantly, or never at all. Trying to appeal to the "hardcore" gamer requires you to put thought and effort into your game, characters, and mechanics, to a degree where you alienate most others who would normally play the game. TF2 and Halo 3 will appeal to a different crowd of people. Stick to what you're good at. You're in the business to make money. You're making money. Work on quality control, and maybe THEN I'll start buying Guitar Hero again.
Because, the way I see it. If you fit into the first category, you dont have a problem selling the games. Guitar Hero and Call of Duty are the only things you need to plaster on the box, and it sells. Your problem is with quality control: you rush your games, and dont bother to listen to the community. And when you DO listen to the community, you listen to the prattling 12 year olds on the forum, that dont represent the core gaming audience.
If your applying for the second position, then stop. The type of "hardcore" gamer you're thinking of is a snooty crowd; that will claim to hate your game even if they play it constantly, or never at all. Trying to appeal to the "hardcore" gamer requires you to put thought and effort into your game, characters, and mechanics, to a degree where you alienate most others who would normally play the game. TF2 and Halo 3 will appeal to a different crowd of people. Stick to what you're good at. You're in the business to make money. You're making money. Work on quality control, and maybe THEN I'll start buying Guitar Hero again.
I was confused for a moment, and I might still be, because I thought you meant he wanted to restore the image that Activision is a hardcore gaming company, that he thought people associated Activision to casual gaming...but such is not the case. So he wants to portray the corporate infrastructure in a positive light? Could be done, I suppose. Just...would need some work.
/spanks for big quotesJohn Funk said:
Well you seen what the patch did too. Just minor math changes, these are things that will change constantly, every 2-3 months, probably more often at the start. And of course probably along with a map every now and then (unless they will decide to make maps as paid DLC... which is possible seeing the current overall trends sadly). It was also patch fixing the fact they put in internal testing changes into beta release.
I remember some time ago there was discussion on when the game is released in context of day-0 DLCs. Pretty much the game has to be send to production 1-2 months before release at least due to all the bureaucracy involved. Them keeping beta up and going (after a month break) is mostly beta test on Battle.Net itself more than actual game. I wouldn't be surprised if we get a balance patch on release day.
Yo can't forget also the fact that team working on Battle.Nets functionality is not really the same as team working on core of the game. Coders for game are separate from networking coders, all that game itself needed was connection to the service, and its B.Nets coding that handles all the features, so there is no real reason why both features cant be worked on same time without pulling resources from each other.
I'm well aware that the B.net team and the SC2 team aren't the same.Keava said:
But even so, they're probably still making improvements and making sure that BNet actually WORKS once it gets a few million people flooding it wanting to play the game. That takes priority over adding features at this point.
Well they could start by listening to the informed gamer community and not the legions of drones who have never heard of any of these people who comprise most gamers sadly. That would be a big start. He could also teach Bobby Kotick that gamers are people and not ATMs for when he needs more money as such can refuse to give him and the company he is the CEO of money. Stop making shitty DLC(I know this is not mandatory but needs to stop). Stop removing proven successful ways of gaming ie Lan and dedicated servers.
Hoping for it, 2 days ago i couldn't even log to beta due to some server errors, keeping me out for pretty much half of day. But it still doesn't convince me to the fact that they couldn't just as well wait with B.Net 2.0 till it's fully ready, rather than forcing its release for SC2. Would make the actual 'hardcore' community happier.John Funk said:
Mainly the LAN feature. I think i've read somewhere along the moaning posts of TeamLiquid that Blizzards new policy prevents you from hosting your local SC2 tournaments without asking for Blizzard permission. That's not really pro-'hardcore' base idea.
Eh, SC2 and BNet2.0 are so intrinsically linked that to separate the two would be a herculean effort right now, and really not worth it. Bnet 2.0 is very flawed right now, but it's perfectly *functional* for ~90%+ of the playerbase (the ones who just want to get on and play).Keava said:
LAN is 95% not going to happen no matter what they do with the new Bnet. It's frustrating, but harping on it probably won't change anything other than just irritating the people who don't care about it.
I realize that, even tho LAN was the way i first experienced SC in '98, and LAN parties were still the best way for local tournaments. Tho the main point was, if they start talking about 'hardcore' fans, they could show some good will towards those nasty freaks^^John Funk said:
Y'know, what Kotick says is only part of the problem. Yes, his statements cause him to come across as a fun-despising, money-hungry jerk who wants to wring all fun out of anyone involved in games from any angle. But there's also things like the Infinity Ward debacle, and before that, throwing several of the more interesting and original-looking properties Activision was working on under the bus and then suing Tim Schafer for having the gall not to allow his bus-flattened labor to remain properly dead.
Funny thing. I'm not really prepared to forgive policies that seem to actively persecute the creative people behind actually making good games just because you make me chuckle once or twice. Yes, Activision has an image problem that makes its decisions appear in the worst possible light. But that image problem isn't going away until it actually starts making some unequivocally gamer-positive decisions.
Funny thing. I'm not really prepared to forgive policies that seem to actively persecute the creative people behind actually making good games just because you make me chuckle once or twice. Yes, Activision has an image problem that makes its decisions appear in the worst possible light. But that image problem isn't going away until it actually starts making some unequivocally gamer-positive decisions.
