This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Is Blizzard as a PC company dying?

#21sefsefsefsefPosted 11/10/2013 8:08:42 AM
Revenanced posted...
CourtofOwls posted...
i'd guess hearthstone has already made a significant profit for them


You mean because they havnt sold any copies yet. So far, they havnt earned any money and have spent tons of money developing it. Also, the hearthstone beta isnt all that exciting. It's for a niche crowd.


It's a free to play game, and they are already selling stuff for real money in the beta. Everything you said is wrong.
#22kelemvorPosted 11/10/2013 8:28:00 AM
I'm not getting interested in Blizzard again until they announce Warcraft IV... if and when it ever happens.
---
Kelemvor Lyonsbane
#23GynthaeresPosted 11/10/2013 9:06:26 AM
Conker posted...
DaedalusEx posted...
Let's see here...

Warcraft II > Warcraft
Diablo II > Diablo
Warcraft III > Warcraft II

*Activision merger*

Every WoW xpac after Burning Crusade < Burning Crusade
Starcraft II < Starcraft
Diablo III < Diablo II

Notice a pattern?


And there are a lot of people that would disagree with this and suggest you take off the nostalgia goggles. Many of the people that say TBC was the best WoW xpac have not even played all the others, and many people that say SC is better than SC2 either don't play SC2 or whine that it didn't have local play, or why D3 is worse than D2 because of the RMAH and online only, etc. Not saying these can't affect some people negatively, but for the majority it really doesn't affect the overall game experience.



Actually I would say SC2 = SC1. The two are basically the same game. SC2 is a glorified expansion, just making minor tweaks, adding some new units, and revamping the graphics engine.
And as a result, SC2 was doing so well because it changed very little, and so didn't alienate the people who've played no other games but Starcraft in the past decade.

Meanwhile, Diablo 3 tried something new, and... failed. Pretty badly. There were a lot of little things wrong with the game, and a lot of pretty major things, like the RMAH/AH that pretty much destroyed the loot portion of the game (which is like, half the point of these types of games), and then the worst DRM we've seen in years.


Blizzard really isn't the same company they were a decade ago. I wish people would realize this, and stop holding them to the same standard they were held to when Diablo 2, Warcraft 3, and Starcraft game out. There's nothing really special about the company these days, so the rabid fanboyism (not the quoted post above, just in general) is pretty disturbing.
---
The sole purpose of this space is to make my post look longer.
#24ShebeskiiPosted 11/10/2013 9:22:01 AM
lionheart5656 posted...
GwynsSonSolaire posted...
Darkcloud20 posted...
GwynsSonSolaire posted...
Starcraft 2 is basically dead.


First line and the thread is pretty much trash because it started on a completely false premise.


MOBAs such as LoL and DoTA have completely destroyed the player count of Starcraft


Doesn't surprise me.

Starcraft has always had a lot less to do with your actual skill level and a lot more to do with how fast you can click.


Keep telling yourself lies.
---
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens
#25KaushadPosted 11/10/2013 9:24:11 AM
erm... no.
WoW still has ~ 8 million subscribers, which totals to be ~120,000,000 dollars monthly.
Starcraft 2 has dropped a bit, but is by no means dead. still several million who play it.
Hearthstone is amazing.
Diablo III is b****** on for having the RMAH.
---
Let us assume that for the sake of assumption that I am always right.
#26ShebeskiiPosted 11/10/2013 9:24:57 AM
Gynthaeres posted...
Conker posted...
DaedalusEx posted...
Let's see here...

Warcraft II > Warcraft
Diablo II > Diablo
Warcraft III > Warcraft II

*Activision merger*

Every WoW xpac after Burning Crusade < Burning Crusade
Starcraft II < Starcraft
Diablo III < Diablo II

Notice a pattern?


And there are a lot of people that would disagree with this and suggest you take off the nostalgia goggles. Many of the people that say TBC was the best WoW xpac have not even played all the others, and many people that say SC is better than SC2 either don't play SC2 or whine that it didn't have local play, or why D3 is worse than D2 because of the RMAH and online only, etc. Not saying these can't affect some people negatively, but for the majority it really doesn't affect the overall game experience.



Actually I would say SC2 = SC1. The two are basically the same game. SC2 is a glorified expansion, just making minor tweaks, adding some new units, and revamping the graphics engine.
And as a result, SC2 was doing so well because it changed very little, and so didn't alienate the people who've played no other games but Starcraft in the past decade.

Meanwhile, Diablo 3 tried something new, and... failed. Pretty badly. There were a lot of little things wrong with the game, and a lot of pretty major things, like the RMAH/AH that pretty much destroyed the loot portion of the game (which is like, half the point of these types of games), and then the worst DRM we've seen in years.


Blizzard really isn't the same company they were a decade ago. I wish people would realize this, and stop holding them to the same standard they were held to when Diablo 2, Warcraft 3, and Starcraft game out. There's nothing really special about the company these days, so the rabid fanboyism (not the quoted post above, just in general) is pretty disturbing.


This just isn't true. You haven't played SC2 at a level beyond casual games vs. the A.I. and it shows in your statements. Don't talk about games you don't have any comprehension of. You sound like an unexceptional 12 year old talking about the finer points of Fast Chess and Chess. You sound ridiculous.
---
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens
#27AlleRacingPosted 11/10/2013 6:51:33 PM
Conker posted...
AlleRacing posted...
Yeah, online only and the RMAH totally didn't affect the gameplay experience. Lag in single player totally didn't exist, it was a figment of people's imaginations. Loot tables weren't reshuffled to make desirable items rarer and the RMAH more enticing. Not at all.


I'm glad you're incapable of addressing the main point of my post. You select the one game that is the easiest target and ignore everything else. I'll take that as an agreement that Blizzard hasn't actually been that terrible with everything they've done recently.


If the examples you gave for a single game contradict your argument, perhaps you shouldn't use them as examples? You're basically complaining that I attacked the weakest part of your post and that it somehow shouldn't count because reasons.
---
http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/8325/scrunchface2copyfx0.png
http://www.xboxlc.com/cards/default/alle5.jpg
#28ShadowThaReaperPosted 11/10/2013 7:03:38 PM
Kaushad posted...
WoW still has ~ 8 million subscribers, which totals to be ~120,000,000 dollars monthly.


Try 7 million and dropping.

Kaushad posted...
Starcraft 2 has dropped a bit, but is by no means dead. still several million who play it.


The competitive scene is dying. Everyone knows it. Also, I'd like to see your source for "several million".

Kaushad posted...
Hearthstone is amazing.


Okay, fanboy.
#29Sc24lifePosted 11/10/2013 7:31:41 PM
Darkcloud20 posted...
GwynsSonSolaire posted...
Starcraft 2 is basically dead.


First line and the thread is pretty much trash because it started on a completely false premise.

I lol'd. You're so wrong that it's funny.
---
"planetside 2 would only have 30 people running around on a small map fighting."
- GunWolfAlpha
#30ConkerPosted 11/11/2013 7:48:04 AM(edited)
AlleRacing posted...
Conker posted...
AlleRacing posted...
Yeah, online only and the RMAH totally didn't affect the gameplay experience. Lag in single player totally didn't exist, it was a figment of people's imaginations. Loot tables weren't reshuffled to make desirable items rarer and the RMAH more enticing. Not at all.


I'm glad you're incapable of addressing the main point of my post. You select the one game that is the easiest target and ignore everything else. I'll take that as an agreement that Blizzard hasn't actually been that terrible with everything they've done recently.


If the examples you gave for a single game contradict your argument, perhaps you shouldn't use them as examples? You're basically complaining that I attacked the weakest part of your post and that it somehow shouldn't count because reasons.


No, I didn't say it "didn't count." I said you selected the easiest thing to target and ignored anything else, which doesn't necessarily mean those things are really even a problem or are bad things for the majority, it's just what got the most complaints and whining on forums. Again, my reply was directed to someone speaking on three different games, so when I reply about all three of them, I expect someone to not cut out 2/3rds of that conversation to make sarcastic comments that didn't affect everyone. Which to me means the majority of what Blizz does isn't that big of a deal, even to you since you can't bother with a reply except on the obvious usual haters thing to bring up. So I'd take that as agreeing that yeah they might make a mistake or two but they're still basically doing what they've always done just as well, or even better, for the majority of people.

And sorry the game has been a problem for you, but lag hasn't affected me or others I've known IRL in single player, loot tables make no difference to anyone I've played with (it seems to be limited to online b****ing on forums), and the RMAH most people I know just didn't really care about. My college buddies all got it and played together and enjoyed their time, outside of the launch problems, but that's not the core game overall. Yes some of this stuff affects people enough to complain, but for the main experience I've really seen little complaining outside of these boards or haters that go on about launch problems and the RMAH.

It's like how people online post about the latest CoD and how it's s*** for reasons that don't necessarily make it a bad experience for most (don't get me wrong I'm not saying CoD is a great game, but if we're simply talking about where they've come from and gotten to with the quality of their games, it's not a great argument to go off of these complaints you see around here). The majority of people, including professional reviews, just don't agree with the complaints (which is the minority), so you saying this and that doesn't mean s*** unless it is the main gameplay and experience that is truly bad. At the end of the day, it really isn't so terrible (yeah it's subjective so your complaints really don't matter to me or define the actual end-all-be-all of the company), people just get this "OMG it's got this or that wrong with it, we must band together to say how horrible the whole game is and how the company has gone to s***!!!"
---
Lets Go: Lions, Red Wings, Tigers, Pistons!