Poll: Is Activision Ruining Blizzard?

[Uszi]

No, your hateboys, and your arguements do not have mettle. They're based on illogical fear, paranoia, and nostalgia coupled with taking Blizzard comments about what they intend OUT OF CONTEXT. You WANT to hate Blizzard because everyone loves a good bandwagon. Wait till the games are out, then we can all hate Blizzard together if they muck it up. It's not like this is 50 Cent Bullet Proof- this is Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3.

I think that people want very badly to not hate it, so they try to raise a premature stink about it. Maybe that is futile, but it seems better than doing nothing.

And people like to complain. Please, tell me that the thought of playing for three full games instead of one does not feel like you're getting fucked over.

 

[Jursa]

I agree on that one. Blizzard's failed at failing so far when it comes to making games. If SC2 and Diablo 3 become all the bad that the rumors say then there'll be a hell of a lot less blizzard fanboys. I still have hope they'll do a great job on SC2 and Diablo III. If they fail THEN we can cover them in bile and Korean SC fans(like more than half the populace) can start throwing nukes at them.

 

[Amnestic]

And people like to complain. Please, tell me that the thought of playing for three full games instead of one does not feel like you're getting fucked over.

No, not if they're good enough, actually. I'll have to play them all and then decide. Prejudging it before even playing one of the games is retardism of the highest degree. I'm currently struggling to feed myself my monetary issues are that bad, but I still don't think paying for 3 games for 3 games worth of content is a bad thing.

Strange that, isn't it?

 

[John Funk]

As someone who spent part of last week *at* Blizzard, and talking to people in the company from members of their QA department, to the community team, to J. Allen Brack, Jeffery Kaplan, Jay Wilson, and Mike Morhaime himself, I can unequivocally and emphatically say that Activision is *not* ruining the Big Blue. Hell, I came out of Anaheim with more respect for Blizzard than I went in with - which was quite a bit.

The sheer pride they take in their reputation, the quality of their games, and the Blizzard name is really stunning, and what I saw at Blizzcon just emphasized that that pride is wholly deserved.

Blizzard still supports and patches games like StarCraft, WC3, and Diablo II - *years* after they've come out, and hasn't charged a dime to do it. The giant content patches for WoW that they've given for free (not counting subscription fees - and servers, bandwidth and customer service cost money mind you) would have been paid expansions in some other MMOs. What makes anybody think that they won't support and update SC2 and D3 for free as they've always made sure to do? It's Chicken-Little panicking.

As the guy who actually *broke* said story about WoW's paid character customization, I really do have the utmost faith that what Brack said in that press conference was not the harbinger of doom many are hollering that it is. First of all, if anyone expects it to be items that actually matter in the games, that's just silly. They won't be selling epics from the shop or anything. This will likely just be purely cosmetic in nature, and if someone wants to shell out 5$ for a special glowing cape or something, more power to them.

For an example ... say the paid customization comes in the form of something that players on the forums have been asking for for a while: different character models. The ability to make a skinny male human, or whatever. If they did this, it would require pretty significant effort to go back and re-model every single piece of equipment in the game so that it would look appropriate for the new character model. That's a lot of manpower for something not everybody would want or even care about. So it wouldn't make sense to bundle it in with an expansion, but to get a return on investment, you'd want to charge the people who WOULD care about it.

It's completely optional, largely cosmetic, and I imagine the same thing will apply for whatever they do with Battle.net as well. Maybe you get slightly better functionality. Maybe you won't get advertisements.

Really, people are freaking out over this when it's really not that big a deal.

As for SC2? Well, from what I've seen, the decision does make sense given that the other choices were A.) delaying SC2 indefinitely, or B.) cutting parts of the game that they thought would be awesome. It's not like they're making it so that you need to buy all three to play multiplayer - whatever additions/fixes come to multiplayer with the Zerg/Protoss packs will probably be patched in for free.

If the games are worth a full-game price, they'll get a full-game price. If not, they'll be priced accordingly. Didn't Rob Pardo say they were planning on doing two SC2 expansions anyway? This is just shifting their tactics a bit.

So no, Activision hasn't been ruining Blizzard. Diablo 3 was awesome, StarCraft 2 was awesome, and WotLK is an incredibly more ambitious - and successful - expansion than Burning Crusade ever was.

Edit: This still doesn't mean that we aren't incredibly overdue for Lost Vikings 3, though.

 

[SonofSeth]

Internet paranoia is strong!

 

[Lt. Sera]

First of all, if anyone expects it to be items that actually matter in the games, that's just silly. They won't be selling epics from the shop or anything. This will likely just be purely cosmetic in nature, and if someone wants to shell out 5$ for a special glowing cape or something, more power to them.

While I do hold Blizzard in high regard, i fear these micro transactions will open the gates towards something worse, like indeed purchasable gear that does matter. Why do i fear this?
They've stated over years, in official postings, that they wouldn't allow transfers from PvE to PvP servers: BAM Paid transfers from PvE to PvP are now available.
Then we get the "we split SC2 into three separate games" followed by "we need to make a profit out of BattleNet somehow".

While I understand that as a company, they seek profit, I can't help but feel that this focus on profit will slowly eat away at quality. I hope I'm wrong though. Imagine what a powerhouse Blizzard will be if they do business like EA, while still making quality games.

 

[Uszi]

Ehhhh.

Okay.

/endthread

 

[TsunamiWombat]

First of all, if anyone expects it to be items that actually matter in the games, that's just silly. They won't be selling epics from the shop or anything. This will likely just be purely cosmetic in nature, and if someone wants to shell out 5$ for a special glowing cape or something, more power to them.

While I do hold Blizzard in high regard, i fear these micro transactions will open the gates towards something worse, like indeed purchasable gear that does matter. Why do i fear this?
They've stated over years, in official postings, that they wouldn't allow transfers from PvE to PvP servers: BAM Paid transfers from PvE to PvP are now available.
Then we get the "we split SC2 into three separate games" followed by "we need to make a profit out of BattleNet somehow".

While I understand that as a company, they seek profit, I can't help but feel that this focus on profit will slowly eat away at quality. I hope I'm wrong though. Imagine what a powerhouse Blizzard will be if they do business like EA, while still making quality games.

If they make quality games, then they wouldn't be doing business like EA.

RIMSHOT!

 

[Atrer]

I think since the massive crazy success of WoW Blizzards gone money berserk.

 

[John Funk]

Well, given that all three of their upcoming games at Blizzcon were tons of fun, I don't think you need to worry about a loss of quality yet

Going to not mention names here, but while chatting with some of the Blizzard employees, I was told that they'd witnessed one of the game directors yelling at - really chewing out - someone, not because of a bad fiscal decision or anything like that, but genuinely upset that people who were attending Blizzcon might not have the very best experience possible. Said person told me that even after years with the company, they were still really stunned and impressed by how much, during development, the directors and higher-ups mandated *that* above all else.

And again, I have to just repeat that I talked with a bunch of Blizzard folks over last weekend from QA people and customer support up to the very top. I've seen absolutely nothing to indicate that their pride in their name and reputation is slipping in any way, and really it just affirmed that.

Of course, you haven't talked with the people I've talked to, so I don't blame you if you'd rather not just take my word for it. But I wouldn't be worried about Blizzard going the route of EA any time soon.

 

[James Raynor]

I don't care if it's 3 different parts of Starcraft 2, as long as Battle.Net is still free to use =/

 

[Rosszul]

Although Blizzard denied Activision's involvement with the whole Starcraft II thing, I do believe they were still behind it. Seriously, Blizzard makes too much money off WoW so they don't "have to".

For the lack of a better term, Blizzard is MILKING Starcraft. It's just too much to bear.

 

[Lemony]

I agree with Can'tfaketheFunk,
Blizzard has ALWAYS (please ignore Starcraft: Ghost) made execellent games no matter what. So what if they charge a bit extra? That's supply and demand people, ECONOMICS. Blizzard could be total douches and sell SC2 for $100, and they STILL would make money. Anything Blizz touches works and sells millions.

 

[Capo Taco]

I agree with Can'tfaketheFunk,
Blizzard has ALWAYS (please ignore Starcraft: Ghost) made execellent games no matter what. So what if they charge a bit extra? That's supply and demand people, ECONOMICS. Blizzard could be total douches and sell SC2 for $100, and they STILL would make money. Anything Blizz touches works and sells millions.

Starcraft ghost is just an example of how awesome blizzard is. Game is not good enough? We won't release it. Do you know any other game company that could take a decision like that after years of development?

CantTakeTheFunk, I've had the experience of lunching with some blizzard high-ups once. To be honest they were really annoying, talking about the cool experiences they've had with playing world of warcraft and sharing things they've done and experienced while playing the game. Any game that has executives playing their own game for fun, will not see mindless monetizing. Blizzard's goal isn't just to make money, it's their goal to both make money and make AAA games.


ps. they weren't annoying, they were humble and friendly.

 

[Graustein]

I agree with Can'tfaketheFunk,
Blizzard has ALWAYS (please ignore Starcraft: Ghost) made execellent games no matter what. So what if they charge a bit extra? That's supply and demand people, ECONOMICS. Blizzard could be total douches and sell SC2 for $100, and they STILL would make money. Anything Blizz touches works and sells millions.

Starcraft: Ghost doesn't count, because they never MADE the bloody thing. I agree though.

 

[Uszi]

Starcraft: Ghost doesn't count, because they never MADE the bloody thing. I agree though.

Word on the street: SC:G was just a cover up for work on SC:II.

Again, I think that Cantfakethefunk has assuaged some of my fanboyrage, as I look back on my good times with Ol' Blue.

But... still... three part SCII smells like marketing, not game making.

 

[Graustein]

Starcraft: Ghost doesn't count, because they never MADE the bloody thing. I agree though.

Word on the street: SC:G was just a cover up for work on SC:II.

Again, I think that Cantfakethefunk has assuaged some of my fanboyrage, as I look back on my good times with Ol' Blue.

But... still... three part SCII smells like marketing, not game making.

I honestly think it's both. I mean, really, what are Blizzard's options?
1.) Release them all together as some ginormous, 90-mission campaign that not everyone will appreciate cos the damn thing's so long, not to mention it'll have to be at least twice as expensive as a normal game and take longer to release than Duke Nukem Forever. End result? Huge cost for Blizzard, less of a profit than they'd get if they release it as a trilogy (cos big as it is, people won't enjoy coughing up three times normal price, especially if they just want the multiplayer action), less players because some people won't be able to afford it, and probably some other issues I haven't thought of. This scenario clearly isn't feasible at all.
2.) Cut content from the campaigns - this is just something they don't want to do. It's feasible, but they personally won't like it, and it'd leave us with a possibly subpar campaign.
3.) Do what they're doing now. Release it in installments, with full multiplayer functionality from the start. People who just want multiplayer get multiplayer with just one purchase. People who want more than multiplayer pay and recieve MUCH more than multiplayer.

Honestly, the way I see it, it's really the best choice.

 

[Gig_Complex]

While I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, on both the splitting of SCII and the possible monetization of certain factors of Battle.net, which may or may not be happening (as there is evidence pointing to either), I feel that since the merger there has been a trend towards raising the bottom line. From my experiences with Blizzard in the past (DI and DII, SCI, WCI, II, & III, as well as two years of WoW) that their first and foremost goal has been to make wonderful games while breaking even or at most a little bit of profit.

On the matter of the possible subscription/one-time fee/what ever plan they may incorporate to charge for possible expansion of Battle.net services, the fact remains that Battle.net is run at a minuscule cost to Blizzard. Practically all of the hosting is done by players and Blizzard has very little upkeep in regards to it.

On the splitting of SCII into three parts, I plan to with-hold my judgment until more information on how this will effect multiplayer is released and how much it will cost per installment. Let's not kid ourselves here, the biggest factor of the SC series is the multiplayer no matter how much Blizzard plans to tote the singleplayer. If I have to pay full price for a third of the multiplayer at a time, especially if the multiplayer is bollocks compared to the singleplayer (or just bollocks in general), which is the 'reason' for splitting the game into three I, and probably a good deal of others, will rather pissed, and by rather pissed I mean Korea will probably declare war on Blizzard.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

While I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, on both the splitting of SCII and the possible monetization of certain factors of Battle.net, which may or may not be happening (as there is evidence pointing to either), I feel that since the merger there has been a trend towards raising the bottom line. From my experiences with Blizzard in the past (DI and DII, SCI, WCI, II, & III, as well as two years of WoW) that their first and foremost goal has been to make wonderful games while breaking even or at most a little bit of profit.

On the matter of the possible subscription/one-time fee/what ever plan they may incorporate to charge for possible expansion of Battle.net services, the fact remains that Battle.net is run at a minuscule cost to Blizzard. Practically all of the hosting is done by players and Blizzard has very little upkeep in regards to it.

On the splitting of SCII into three parts, I plan to with-hold my judgment until more information on how this will effect multiplayer is released and how much it will cost per installment. Let's not kid ourselves here, the biggest factor of the SC series is the multiplayer no matter how much Blizzard plans to tote the singleplayer. If I have to pay full price for a third of the multiplayer at a time, especially if the multiplayer is bollocks compared to the singleplayer (or just bollocks in general), which is the 'reason' for splitting the game into three I, and probably a good deal of others, will rather pissed, and by rather pissed I mean Korea will probably declare war on Blizzard.

Multiplayer will come full with the first release. They were very, very careful to point that out (scared of Korea probably). All the races will come with the first game, just only the Terrens will have a singleplayer campaign. you can still skirmish/multiplay with zerg/protoss.