Blizzard's poor excuses

[tankbug]

Even Blizzard can't just hire 50 new people and instantly speed up game development. Not only is employees an extremely high cost, but they probably can't contribute much before some time, since they need to learn a lot about tools, dev processes/models and basically just learn how to make stuff that Blizzard needs. Finding the right people and getting them up to speed can take months, especially if they've just finished college. And every time a veteran guy quits, things will lag behind.

[Vankrys]

I didn't misunderstand. I'm saying they have staggered their content and it's been met negatively. It has been some time, but Blizz is admittedly stupidly cautious.

maybe because each individual content was too small. which could be fix by adding more dev team.
i don't see a reasoning why regular frequent content update is a bad thing.

[Raelbo]

I am not sure not losing subs faster than they do is such a big accomplishment. Yes, they are doing something, they aren't just sitting there doing nothing. The job they are doing isn't very good, hence the losses.

I was simply presenting the other side of the coin. The simple fact is we don't know whether they are doing a good job or a bad job because we have no benchmark to test against because there is no game that can compare to WoW in both magnitude and age.

We can all have our opinions on the matter, but they remain just that. And arguing that the falling sub numbers are "proof" that the devs have done a bad job is, IMO just plain ignorant, and undermines the credibility of the person making the argument.

[Vankrys]

Even Blizzard can't just hire 50 new people and instantly speed up game development. Not only is employees an extremely high cost, but they probably can't contribute much before some time, since they need to learn a lot about tools, dev processes/models and basically just learn how to make stuff that Blizzard needs. Finding the right people and getting them up to speed can take months, especially if they've just finished college. And every time a veteran guy quits, things will lag behind.

i agree, it is not a short term solution. New employee may have to go through some training to use blizzard tools or gain experience in blizzard craft before being productive. However, they said 4 years ago that they wanted content patch to be more frequent, it was then they should have expended their business. Especially since wow was then nearly at his peak.

1 year ICC, near 1 year DS, perhaps even longer SoO, that's mismanagement to me.

[Raelbo]

well, if babies is some kind of weird analogy for content in MMO, then surely 9 babies is better than 1 right? Don't have to release it all at once also.

This is a simple analogy. It wasn't invented for WoW. Just about every engineer on the planet will have heard this analogy before at some point in their career. Hell, 2 of us came up with it independently on like the first or second page. First time I heard it was in a conference with about 500 engineers and you know what? Every single one in the room got it and had a quick chuckle. Why? Because we can all identify with it. We understand it.

My point?

If you don't get the analogy, the problem isn't the analogy.

Now stop trying to be difficult. Either try to understand what is being said, or move along.

[Deleted]

Being a programmer myself I facepalm on the regular at their "well that would be really hard to code".... The latest being a feature that has already been in the game coming back - "really hard to code man"


That and "well would take time away from developing cool stuff" - "Here is a store and store stuff and more store buttons"

[Raelbo]

If we really wanted to solve all the world's problems, we should just give the job to teenagers while they still know everything....

[Sunaka]

maybe because each individual content was too small. which could be fix by adding more dev team.
i don't see a reasoning why regular frequent content update is a bad thing.

Too many updates is actually bad. Again, casuals are the backbone. Casuals are also easily overwhelmed. Having a new raid every 3 months feels too fast, but having a couple dungeons every 3 months pisses off the diehards. They had multiple additions every few months this expansion, but because they were scenarios they 'don't matter'. This expansion is 15 months old and had 4 content patches. Admittedly WoD is a ways out, but unless 5.5 was a raid patch nobody would care.

[Zebuthecow]

I agree. But I hate the word greed. It is overused and misused.

I don't think it is a matter of low resources for Blizzard, so much as it is they just do not have the desire to give us more stuff. I totally believe that many of them are just burned out working on the same game for over a decade.

I think the empty pockets routine is just their Go-To answer when someone presses them on why a feature is not in the game.

This poor mouthing they have been doing since Cataclysm is the main reason subs dropped so much.

Blizzard laid off hundreds of employees a few years ago. That was a huge chunk of change they were spending on those support people.

In MoP we were not given any 5 mans since launch. They were bragging it was because they had Scenarios now which were super cheap to make because all they do is take existing maps, throw some invisible walls around, and add a few NPCs to fight.

They had guys constantly bragging on how many shortcuts they were taking.

I am looking forward to WoD because they are promising more 5 mans and some will be very tough like the old days of BC. It feels like the old W2 experience is coming back- I loved Draenor before it blew up while playing the RTS'es.

I am mainly a healer and tank. I liked MoP but I have been so bored with the game. Scenarios were a great addition, but they are not a substitute for 5 mans.

My opinion about it being tough to find great programmers and artists- it is nonsense.

They are Blizzard. Some of the best artists, devs, and managers in the world of gaming dream of working there.

[Vankrys]

This is a simple analogy. It wasn't invented for WoW. Just about every engineer on the planet will have heard this analogy before at some point in their career. Hell, 2 of us came up with it independently on like the first or second page. First time I heard it was in a conference with about 500 engineers and you know what? Every single one in the room got it and had a quick chuckle. Why? Because we can all identify with it. We understand it.

My point?

If you don't get the analogy, the problem isn't the analogy.

Now stop trying to be difficult. Either try to understand what is being said, or move along.

no need to be aggresive, i understand the meaning of it perfectly well, there are something just can't be brute forced.
i do not dispute the fact that developing one piece of content will take the necessary time nor do i ever hinted to the fact that doubling the team size will double the speed, i never said that.

however...

the intrinsic incompressible time of R&D can be offset with wise management.

you have a medical device company.
have an engineer working on a knee implant
another working on a hip implant
another on shoulder implant.

this is more time efficient than having the 3 of them working on first the knee, then the hip, then the shoulder.
you effectively increased "apparent" speed, while the development of each individual part is not any faster (incompressible time, we admitted that)

That's management.

(and by the way, that how my company work, we, engineer, all have our own project).

[Sunaka]

this is more time efficient than having the 3 of them working on first the knee, then the hip, then the shoulder.
you effectively increased "apparent" speed, while the development of each individual part is not any faster (incompressible time, we admitted that)

And if you needed ~10 people per project before even starting? Would you hire that many more, not even knowing if you'll need them later and may have to fire them upon completion? That's also management.

Keep in mind, the lost subs have many reasons, and it's easy to make the case that WoW's longevity is tenuous enough to limit new hires to produce more content. Say it tanked the expansion after WoD. They now have to fire a hefty number of people if they can't funnel them. While I can't say that's likely, again, they're stupidly cautious.

[Geckoo]

They give themselves too much importance. Also i don't think they have any passion left for wow as a game anymore, it's simply a job to be done. And i'm not saying they did a bad job, simply i don't feel they are traying to make a game made by gamers for gamers, and more like professionals making a game for their customers, but always bitching of how they have to do A or B, not both and telling us what we need instead of hearing us.

[Vankrys]

And if you needed ~10 people per project before even starting? Would you hire that many more, not even knowing if you'll need them later and may have to fire them upon completion?

that's another yet valid point but we not in project management anymore. we have to consider company strategy and goal.
Usually, company hier people when they grow and let people go when they are having deficit. That is why i think the bulk of the hiring should have been done (like i said above) when wow was at his peak, if anything, to honor their word that they would release content AND EXPANSION faster.

That being said, now that wow is declining, i see only 2 options. You scale the workforce accordingly to the decrease of the business OR you invest in more workforce to retake lost market shares. I would assume the second option would come with better, bigger, and more overall content. A year of SoO would not be a good telltale sign though.

So hiring people

[Raelbo]

no need to be aggresive, i understand the meaning of it perfectly well,

so basically you were being disingenuous. Got it.

the intrinsic incompressible time of R&D can be offset with wise management.

Of course. But who are you, or anyone on this forum to say that they aren't doing what is reasonable to expect? Maybe they aren't, maybe they are. It's this "I am 100% certain they aren't even though I am in no position to have a clue either way" attitude that is uncalled for.

Knowing what you don't know is very often a lot more important than what you do know.

you have a medical device company.
have an engineer working on a knee implant
another working on a hip implant
another on shoulder implant.

this is more time efficient than having the 3 of them working on first the knee, then the hip, then the shoulder.
you effectively increased "apparent" speed, while the development of each individual part is not any faster (incompressible time, we admitted that)

That's management.

So why don't you hire 3 more engineers? Or never mind 3, why not hire 50 more? This way your patients won't have to be so patient while your company takes forever to make a new implant for someone.

[rda]

Of course. But who are you, or anyone on this forum to say that they aren't doing what is reasonable to expect? Maybe they aren't, maybe they are. It's this "I am 100% certain they aren't even though I am in no position to have a clue either way" attitude that is uncalled for.

You are making it more complex than it is. They are losing subs. They have been losing subs for years. Thus they are doing a bad job. I know you think this reasoning is faulty, but I disagree with that, I think the sub losses primarily have to do with their bad decisions. It's that way with other companies, you know, times change and situations arise, but in the end it comes to good decisions and bad decisions.

[Sunaka]

to honor their word that they would release content AND EXPANSION faster.

Honestly, if they'd kept content a BC levels of complexity, they could've. I'm pretty sure they did what I alluded to and expanded scope as they got more people, keeping net time similar or longer.

[megasus]

I think most people are missing the point here.
It's not about how Blizzard would be able to deliver more or expand their resources. It's about why should they do this?
Other games are developed by smaller teams, yet they cost nearly the same.
Why do you suddenly demand more stuff faster, demand more available resources, a bigger dev team?

[Pann]

Well that's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that they have done a brilliant job to keep it going this long and still continue to bring in a healthy profit margin. GJ guys at Blizzard!

I am sorry I thought we were talking about what happens in the real world outside of Blizzard. In reality if anyone expects someone other than their mother to tell them are doing a good job for not losing all their customers when they are seeing double digit like for like losses every year for over three years they are in for a real shock when they eventually sever the apron ties.

[Vankrys]

Of course. But who are you, or anyone on this forum to say that they aren't doing what is reasonable to expect? Maybe they aren't, maybe they are. It's this "I am 100% certain they aren't even though I am in no position to have a clue either way" attitude that is uncalled for.

I am very certain that they have a thorough and competent management team. I believe bobby kotick is a very intelligent busynessman. However, and again this is personal, i do not think the content they give is worth the money they ask. For that money, i want more, this is my right. I will not get it (unfortunately because wow is a fun game at time) most likely, hence i elect to spend money elsewhere.

I believe they could do more, given their size, but this is a belief, not a statement of truth. Like you said, i enter the realm of what i don't know, i just said i believe.



ok, in the past 2 page, i think i said my piece, i don't think adding more will yield good results, sometimes less is more.
i will now shut up, and listen.

[Raelbo]

You are making it more complex than it is. They are losing subs. They have been losing subs for years. Thus they are doing a bad job. I know you think this reasoning is faulty, but I disagree with that,

Well the reasoning is faulty. Period. The sub loss could be the result of them doing a bad job. But maybe it could simply the nature of a product like WoW that it will peak and then start to decline, and that this is impossible to prevent.

The point being that the sub-losses in and of themselves are not evidence of anything unless you understand the reasons or have some benchmark against which to test.

I think the sub losses primarily have to do with their bad decisions. It's that way with other companies, you know, times change and situations arise, but in the end it comes to good decisions and bad decisions.

And without getting embroiled in an off-topic debate, I think it's fair to say that how a lot of their decisions are judged is highly subjective. You may think it's bad, a bunch of people will agree with you. But at the same time a bunch of other people will disagree.