Morale at Blizzard low?

[Gorsameth]

Everybody just wants growth. Obviously same or higher rate/pace year on year growth. Will be an interesting moment to witness when those companies realize the pie ain’t growing as fast as they sweettalked the owners to believe.

Not really. Its just the basic boom-bust-boom-bust wave that is inherent in capitalism.

[Demithio]

Everybody just wants growth. Obviously same or higher rate/pace year on year growth. Will be an interesting moment to witness when those companies realize the pie ain’t growing as fast as they sweettalked the owners to believe.

Also - I happily keep voting with my wallet AND time (to avoid being part of the product). They can squeeze others.

I agree. I simply flat out refuse to pay anymore. This is the first time that I have not bought an expansion and screwed around for a month or so until I got disgusted and bored with it. I haven't been a consistent subscriber for a long time now.

[Clone]

2.3 = ZA patch.
2.4= SWP patch MGT too
3.0.2 wotlk release patch (naxx, sarth, whatever else there was)

I can produce numbers in free time (a persusal of my old posts will find them, eventually< i think, but regarding other topics). I myself am a little curious and the netease/the9 issue was an interesting area to look at also in terms of revenue but it would take a bit of work. You will be pinged if I do it.

You have made a big step towards a more moderate analysis of the matter by suggesting Kotick advocated a certain approach (which is what I have been saying all along, and which is considered a conspiracy theory on MMO-C.)

Well no. The conspiracy theory puts Kotick as the driving factor of change, while it's clear that market demands were the driving factor. Who was in charge at the time doesn't matter. Blizzard would have responded to the same market demands with it without Kotick.

Suggesting it was Kotick is taking a step away from moderate.

[Osmeric]

Suggesting it was Kotick is taking a step away from moderate.

Yes. In fact, even if they go whole hog Activision in their behavior, it's still not necessarily due to Kotick calling the shots. It could just be that Kotick's view on what's needed to succeed commercially is correct.

[Deficineiron]

Well no. The conspiracy theory puts Kotick as the driving factor of change, while it's clear that market demands were the driving factor. Who was in charge at the time doesn't matter. Blizzard would have responded to the same market demands with it without Kotick.

Suggesting it was Kotick is taking a step away from moderate.

it is not clear to me that market demands were the factor in 3.0.2, but not in 2.4.3. can you explain your reasoning (or point me to something that does?)

the point is always timing and severity of the turn to accessibility. a few months after the merger, they suddenly take on an approach that resonates with their new owner's public stance on design. why not a month before the merger in 2.4.3? why not some months after wotlk release in 3.1.x?

[Stormspellz]

a pay cut and your companies lifeblood literally booed you at your own convention.

not much a surprise

[Clone]

it is not clear to me that market demands were the factor in 3.0.2, but not in 2.4.3. can you explain your reasoning (or point me to something that does?)

the point is always timing and severity of the turn to accessibility. a few months after the merger, they suddenly take on an approach that resonates with their new owner's public stance on design. why not a month before the merger in 2.4.3? why not some months after wotlk release in 3.1.x?

I see what you are getting at with these patches.

Anyway, just because two events occur at the same time doesn't mean they are related.

[MoanaLisa]

it is not clear to me that market demands were the factor in 3.0.2, but not in 2.4.3. can you explain your reasoning (or point me to something that does?)

Your argument seems to be ignoring the very long lead times Blizzard takes to develop an expansion. The better part of two years in the case of Wrath.

What do you imagine the market demands were at the time they started developing 3.0.2? That would make expansion planning start at the start of BC if not a bit earlier. They didn't look around at launch of 2.4.3 and then start on Wrath.

Do you imagine that market conditions were exactly the opposite that lead to the catastrophic decision-making with Cataclysm to make the game more difficult?

The simpler theory is that Chilton and Blizzard collectively went with their gut and got it wrong.

[Soon-TM]

Your argument seems to be ignoring the very long lead times Blizzard takes to develop an expansion. The better part of two years in the case of Wrath.

What do you imagine the market demands were at the time they started developing 3.0.2? That would make expansion planning start at the start of BC if not a bit earlier. They didn't look around at launch of 2.4.3 and then start on Wrath.

Do you imagine that market conditions were exactly the opposite that lead to the catastrophic decision-making with Cataclysm to make the game more difficult?

The simpler theory is that Chilton and Blizzard collectively went with their gut and got it wrong.

Cataclysm heroics would have been fine if they had implemented them after BC. But after WotLK, a lot of players learned to forget about CC, dispelling and threat (among other PvE mechanics), so the playerbase as a whole was woefully unprepared for it. It didn't help that levelling was made trivially easy, both in dungeons and in the open world, which goes against the supposed "git gud" spirit of Cata. They may have thought that they were just putting things in their right place, at least partially, but didn't foresee the consequences.

And the question remains: what made WotLK overall much easier (or accessible, if you prefer) than BC? Can the merger possibly have had no effect whatsoever, so that you can wave it away beforehand?

[Clone]

And the question remains: what made WotLK overall much easier (or accessible, if you prefer) than BC? Can the merger possibly have had no effect whatsoever, so that you can wave it away beforehand?

Or, like many people have been saying, the effect was from consumer demand. Are you going to blame Activision on linear dungeons in TBC as well because it's easier to navigate than BRD? What about reduced raid size because it's easier to get 25 people together than 40?

[Soon-TM]

Or, like many people have been saying, the effect was from consumer demand. Are you going to blame Activision on linear dungeons in TBC as well because it's easier to navigate than BRD? What about reduced raid size because it's easier to get 25 people together than 40?

That's not what I'm talking about, and you know it well.

[Deficineiron]

Your argument seems to be ignoring the very long lead times Blizzard takes to develop an expansion. The better part of two years in the case of Wrath.

What do you imagine the market demands were at the time they started developing 3.0.2? That would make expansion planning start at the start of BC if not a bit earlier. They didn't look around at launch of 2.4.3 and then start on Wrath.

Do you imagine that market conditions were exactly the opposite that lead to the catastrophic decision-making with Cataclysm to make the game more difficult?

The simpler theory is that Chilton and Blizzard collectively went with their gut and got it wrong.

I don't think there was any lead time for the 3.0.2 accessibility changes as far as tuning goes. When it was current I looked at it more closely and concluded that the only 'difference' I could find was was seemed like an across-the-board mob damage nerf in the new content. I did not determine if there was a mob health nerf too.

the only accessibility system actually added was raid size/difficulty settings.

as you can imagine, the 'lead time' for just cutting mob damage x% from what had been originally envisioned isn't too long.

the only other issues are 1) threat modifications which essentially trivialized it as an encounter mechanic and 2) no attunements at all for heroic dungeons (not sure about heroic raids). I am not sure when (time-wise) the threat changes became publicly known or discussed. I am not sure if they ever intended any attunement requirements for any content. Someone here may know when the threat issue first appeared, but I doubt anyone factually knows if they ever intended to include even minor attunements for heroic content.

- - - Updated - - -

Or, like many people have been saying, the effect was from consumer demand. Are you going to blame Activision on linear dungeons in TBC as well because it's easier to navigate than BRD? What about reduced raid size because it's easier to get 25 people together than 40?

but he didn't discuss linear dungeons. no one has on this thread, to my knowledge. (this is a minor example of the 'absurd absolute' where you invent an absurd argument as an example of the opposite parties viewpoint and then pretend he actually said this and draw conclusions from it. it is absurd because the decisions clone references were clearly undertaken well over a year before the merger was even announced, and he knows it.)


re correlation/causation - correlation also does not disprove causation. the causation set is a subset of the correlation set.

[Deleted]

Do you imagine that market conditions were exactly the opposite that lead to the catastrophic decision-making with Cataclysm to make the game more difficult?

The simpler theory is that Chilton and Blizzard collectively went with their gut and got it wrong.

That was a good decision which let players see more content with a greater challenge instead of the boosting gated mess we have today.

The problem with cataclysm was the handling of the world changes, an unfinished vashjr zone plus raid and then the dragon soul problems.

[MoanaLisa]

That was a good decision which let players see more content with a greater challenge instead of the boosting gated mess we have today.

The problem with cataclysm was the handling of the world changes, an unfinished vashjr zone plus raid and then the dragon soul problems.

Players left starting almost immediately. The opinion you posted is contrary to the actual facts and is revisionist history.

I suppose that rush job to neuter heroics just days after Ghostcrawler's plea to learn to play because it would be a better experience--Dungeons are Hard!--was just a figment of my and everyone else's imagination. Very few cared about a Vash'jir raid (if they even knew about it) and the damage was done by the time Dragon Soul was out. Granted DS was a terrible raid but by that point millions had left. The irony to that is that was the raid where LFR first appeared and the flood of people cancelling their subscriptions slowed and stopped for a while.

[Deleted]

Players left starting almost immediately. The opinion you posted is contrary to the actual facts and is revisionist history.

Then there must of been some really bad players around at that time if you're blaming cataclysm on being a little harder as the cause of some subscribers leaving.

[Deficineiron]

Then there must of been some really bad players around at that time if you're blaming cataclysm on being a little harder as the cause of some subscribers leaving.

I think he is right on this, blizzard's reaction on nerfing heroics was so fast and decisive that it is clear that they were seeing a big problem in metrics on their end. maybe the actual content wasn't too hard per se but too hard for random anonymous grouping. IIRC, you couldn't even kick people in LFD groups early on, right?

just think about it - blind, random grouping in a hard dungeon with no accountability mechanisms and no screening attunements(revered keys in BC were a great one but even then you could get folks with the key and decent gear who just couldn't do the dps or handle other roles) what could possibly go wrong?

this is, btw, why I suspect that whoever lobbied for harder heroics in 4.0 also lobbied for no LFD for those heroics.

[Deleted]

I think he is right on this, blizzard's reaction on nerfing heroics was so fast and decisive that it is clear that they were seeing a big problem in metrics on their end. maybe the actual content wasn't too hard per se but too hard for random anonymous grouping. IIRC, you couldn't even kick people in LFD groups early on, right?

just think about it - blind, random grouping in a hard dungeon with no accountability mechanisms and no screening attunements(revered keys in BC were a great one but even then you could get folks with the key and decent gear who just couldn't do the dps or handle other roles) what could possibly go wrong?

this is, btw, why I suspect that whoever lobbied for harder heroics in 4.0 also lobbied for no LFD for those heroics.

I pugged with randoms as a tank more than enough times through those dungeons. They felt like the same difficulty as TBC normal dungeons. Maybe the people leaving were wrath babies that never learnt what CC or interrupting meant.

[Merie]

Is the whole basis of this thread put behind a YouTube video of some streamer?

Imagine if that's how real life worked. If the New York Times, CNN, Fox, etc.... sourced their beliefs on some guy on You Tube!

What a pointless thread. I don't even know what's it's about because I literally cannot watch streamers, so I don't know what the guy is saying.

With Fox, I wouldn't be surprised.

[MoanaLisa]

I pugged with randoms as a tank more than enough times through those dungeons. They felt like the same difficulty as TBC normal dungeons. Maybe the people leaving were wrath babies that never learnt what CC or interrupting meant.

Cataclysm heroics were fine if you ran them with people you knew, friends or a guild. They were pretty much a clusterfuck if you ran them with randoms. I liked them myself.

What I'm not going to do is blame Cataclysm's failure on the things I didn't like. The initial problem was clearly the difficulty of heroics and Blizzard came out later on and said so. They also nerfed them significantly as their first reaction to the problem of players leaving. Too big a jump in difficulty after people got used to rolling over stuff in Wrath. There's a discussion to be had there about design philosophy--in fact challenge modes in Wrath were a direct result of the issues with the initial heroics--but not about the player reaction to the heroics. It's doesn't matter if you or I liked them. Many didn't and left the game en masse. That started off a whole chain of stuff that is still echoing today.

[Clone]

but he didn't discuss linear dungeons. no one has on this thread, to my knowledge. (this is a minor example of the 'absurd absolute' where you invent an absurd argument as an example of the opposite parties viewpoint and then pretend he actually said this and draw conclusions from it. it is absurd because the decisions clone references were clearly undertaken well over a year before the merger was even announced, and he knows it.)


re correlation/causation - correlation also does not disprove causation. the causation set is a subset of the correlation set.

Yeah, I do know it. It was a jab at the poster, but thanks for the course review. It also illustrate the point that Blizzard is fully capable of making things more accessible without Kotick.