Blizzard Says No to Console Cash-in Games

[Logan Westbrook]

Blizzard Says No to Console Cash-in Games

There's plenty of money to be made on PC, says Blizzard, as long as you're willing to put the effort in.

Diablo 3's game director Jay Wilson says that Blizzard is not going to bring its games onto consoles just to cash-in on the extra install base. He says that Blizzard is doing just fine on the PC, and didn't need to compromise its games for some extra sales.

That's not to say that Blizzard won't make console games, but it's only going to make them when it's appropriate. He said that, despite appearances, Blizzard was not just a PC developer. Instead, it was a game developer that happened to make games best suited to the PC. "We don't believe you can make a Starcraft-style RTS and make it great - Blizzard great - on console," he added. He said that it was sad that people had bought into the idea that the PC was a dying market, but admitted that that idea may have helped Blizzard to succeed.

"If people think that you can't make money from the PC they should really look at us as a symbol and they should really be asking why we're so successful. It's primarily because of the quality of the games, but when you have a high quality product, very little competition and a high install base..."

Wilson may just have a point. StarCraft 2 apparently sold more [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/102525-StarCraft-II-Outsells-StarCraft-in-the-UK] in its first week in the UK than the first Star Craft did in its entire lifetime, and has since gone on to sell nearly five million units. Of course, Blizzard has established brands to work on, which gives it something of an edge over a new IP of equal quality.

Source: PC Gamer [http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/09/12/blizzard-we-dont-see-ourselves-as-a-pc-developer-were-a-games-developer/]


Permalink

 

[Adzma]

Sooo... why exactly are they stuffing Diablo III with always online DRM? Eh, it'll still sell like hotcakes.

My friends will probably pressure me into buying it anyway.

 

[Uber Waddles]

Says no to console game cash ins.

Says the company that, if you want to change a feature such as your horns or gender, you'll have to pay $25. Or, if you're friends have the gull to start playing on a different server (or if you meet new people who play), you're going to have to pay $25 to change servers. Are they Alliance, and you're Horde? That one runs you $30. Hey, lets not forget. Tauren players are SO 2006. Want to play a Troll? $25. I'd also like to mention the ingame pets, which will run you $15 per pet (but they throw snowballs, so its ok). Or if you want a shinier version of a horse, you guessed it, $25.


All fairly legitimate things, that customer service usually does for free (or a very low cost, such as $10 for a faction change/race change). This is the company that make money by milking its customers already. They are legitimately killing Diablo 3 just to make a few extra dollars (because who wants balance).

Now you're gonna tell me you have integrity for not making shitty console ports?

You, sir, have grapefruit sized balls.

 

[Reverend Del]

Blizzard is right in this case. You can make solid titles for sale purely for the PC, it's not a dying market, and it's not likely to be going anywhere soon. PC only games will still sell well so long as they are good. Make a shoddy product for any platform and it'll only sell well if it has an established IP. Bah that last sentence made me die a little inside... bad games shouldn't sell well at all, and yet slap CoD, or Battlefield on a title and it could be a pile of shit and it would still sell. But that's not the point here is it... I shall take that rant elsewhere.

 

[Jumwa]

Sooo... why exactly are they stuffing Diablo III with always online DRM? Eh, it'll still sell like hotcakes.

Because they want to make sure you're tempted to keep buying from the real-money AH and give them more and more of your money.

 

[Mr Pantomime]

Well of course Blizzard isnt going to port its games to console. None of its games would work on a console. Its like a company that makes squares saying theyre quite happy with their market of square holes, and wont be putting their squares into circular holes any time soon.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Ya right, I'm pretty sure Activision had a word with them afterwards

 

[Jovip]

Yea, i don't even care what blizzard is doing. MMO's are monotonous boring pieces of tripe. Starcraft 2 was fun for roughly 20 hours then it just became a very very complex game of rock paper scissors (You got x then i'm going to make y). But what permanently shoved the stake into my heart was the always online shit in diablo 3. I blatantly refuse to play that game because of it. Not due to my internet connection, which although it crashes every now and then wouldn't be to much of a problem. No, it's the fact that the company is selling me their product, but wanting to keep a watchful eye over it afterwords. Computer nerds are going to find a way to turn the online drm thing off within .5 seconds of the game being released and i may buy it then just to flip off blizzard. But otherwise, they have permanently lost me as a customer. And this is coming from somehow who has played and owns each and every game. (And may i add enjoyed, minus wow. which sucks.)

 

[Silenttalker22]

They are legitimately killing Diablo 3 just to make a few extra dollars (because who wants balance).

Now you're gonna tell me you have integrity for not making shitty console ports?

You, sir, have grapefruit sized balls.

You sir, have the post today that made me laugh.

 

[Ferisar]

Still all-too appropriate.

OP: It's actually pretty funny to think that throughout "PC's slow and painful death through a prolonged elbow scrape", some companies simply lose competition and gain sales. Blizzard's mostly right, though. They don't "need" anything at the moment. I'd go as far as to say WoW is providing them a steady income to derp around and stuff their other games chock-full of junk (read: content) as they see fit, simply because they have the resources. The selling is just a side-benefit.

Can't wait for the game to come out so I can CONSOLIDATE MYSELF WITH THINE SERVERS, MY GARGANTUAN BLUE OVERLORD FROM THE MOUNTAIN!

No really though, hurry up and come out.

 

[PingoBlack]

The guy makes a great point. They are making PC games of high quality and their competition is not really taking PC market seriously. So they reign with very little serious competition.

Sooo... why exactly are they stuffing Diablo III with always online DRM? Eh, it'll still sell like hotcakes.

My friends will probably pressure me into buying it anyway.

Calling it Always On DRM is overgeneralizing.

Just get over the fact Diablo 3 is a CORPG, like Guild Wars was. No one complained about always online requirement in Guild Wars, now have they?

It's just time to accept this. PC market is specific, open and complicated. As long as always online is clearly stated as requirement and it adds significant added value, you have no leg to stand on.

What's worse, just blindly throwing Ubisoft DRM into same category as Blizzard DRM is also not very critical thinking. There are mayor differences between DRM approaches, we should be way more savvy about discussing that critically.

And if you truly have a philosophical reason why you dislike any form of DRM? Don't let any friend coerce you into buying it. Ubisoft still thinks their DRM method is good. Why? Well, it did not hurt their sales at all.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

They make a good point, but I like Valve's style better.

 

[Ferisar]

Actually that makes pretty much no sense at all in the context of this article.

It makes perfect sense, however, in the context of this thread. Come Diablo, come unfiltered rage.

 

[Luke Cartner]

Sooo... why exactly are they stuffing Diablo III with always online DRM?

So modders, dupers and other cheaters as well as gold farmers wouldn't ruin the multiplier economy.
Also from there various comments I dont think they are as concerned with DRM as much as not wanting to waste money including local host server software in the client software when most of the population is permanently online anyways.

 

[WabbitTwacks]

Says no to console game cash ins.

Says the company that, if you want to change a feature such as your horns or gender, you'll have to pay $25. Or, if you're friends have the gull to start playing on a different server (or if you meet new people who play), you're going to have to pay $25 to change servers. Are they Alliance, and you're Horde? That one runs you $30. Hey, lets not forget. Tauren players are SO 2006. Want to play a Troll? $25. I'd also like to mention the ingame pets, which will run you $15 per pet (but they throw snowballs, so its ok). Or if you want a shinier version of a horse, you guessed it, $25.


All fairly legitimate things, that customer service usually does for free (or a very low cost, such as $10 for a faction change/race change). This is the company that make money by milking its customers already. They are legitimately killing Diablo 3 just to make a few extra dollars (because who wants balance).

Now you're gonna tell me you have integrity for not making shitty console ports?

You, sir, have grapefruit sized balls.

Well... all the "free to play" games are milking their customers 10x more than wow. You can enjoy WoW without all the fancy mounts and stuff (OK, I understand your wanting to play on the same server with your friends, but they also have to manage the server population so it's a bit tricky there), but there are a lot of "free to play" games which basically play like a demo, because without buying all the in-game stuff you can't do jack.