I'm not sure about Blizzard anymore

[Deleted]

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/view...opic_id=128252


And given the recent developments with the Diablo 3 situation and the franchise as a whole...

[Saeran]

"Sure" as in....?

Seriously folks...don't feed us three words and expect us to make something from it. Make a clear statement and tell us what irks YOU and not some guy in a link.

Exactly - or even a synopsis of the article as most people (well me ) are too lazy to read all that stuff

[russ555]

Plus the link is 2 years old so it's nothing new.

[Zdrasti]

You could contribute by actually filling in the relevant history since that post was published and the present day.

[Liara]

Seeing how long that article is, I won't actually read it.

However, if you're going to have an opinion on a video game company, I'd suggest basing it on their actual products, and not their corporate history.
And as others have said, you single sentence doesn't provide much insight, nor room for discussion.

[Mashpotaters]

I started to read it, but then I stopped because I thought to myself, "why am I reading this. If the OP is trying to make a point maybe they should make it in their post instead of making me make his point by reading some long article."

[Kesolovac]

Great article, just read it, that CEO is an amazing for his shareholders, cause he's bringing in the profits, but in the long run I think he'll get gamers angry, and ruin the Activision Blizzard

[Deleted]

Great article, just read it, that CEO is an amazing for his shareholders, cause he's bringing in the profits, but in the long run I think he'll get gamers angry, and ruin the Activision Blizzard

The real Blizzard is long gone, this guy and his partners have been at work for some years now, and they are systematically destroying the games and franchises we've come to love. It's not about simply making money, it's about squeezing every single coin to the last one.

And they get away with it all, because people still buy the games, proving them right, validating their direction.

How many titles will it takes for that to change, I don't know, but the recent overhyped titles in the gaming world and the massive dissapointment that followed will hopefully make a difference.

[shimargh]

I really hate the today's blizzard state, but you need to put it yourself. like everyone said, the link is 2 years old.

[Deleted]

Well. It's a fact they're more financial oriented now than they were before the merger, but they're still making quite good games compared to many developers. I think for example Diablo 3 normal mode was made ridiculously streamlined and easy just to attract new players who havent tried Diablo 3 before. Also streamlined has been a trend in video games for some time, if you would break that pattern some new players who arent used to "good old" games difficulty would see the game being too confusing (really it's not confusing, but if you would have played only streamlined games it propably would be).

[Edc]

I hate to break it for you, but gaming is shifting more and more from hardcore to casual, it's becoming a more socially accepted way to spend your free time in all layers of society. When the masses want a game to play don't count on it to be hardcore, most people are casual and like it that way. Most of Blizzard games are quite interesting to play (and remain playing) quite casually, all they do is develop games for the masses, if you are a minority that wants hardcore games it's probably becoming more and more difficult to find interesting titles to play.

Note: Casual does not equal bad.

[Ravenblade]

I don't get why this thread is still being quoted and in a way as if it states the absolute truth. I am sure knowledge transfer went both ways and Blizzard had a vested interest based on their experiences with people using their games to sell and market generated content to overhaul the Battle.net long before Activision appeared.

It is entirely possible that Blizzard's own initial version wasn't quite fit for the market and that their partnership gave them some pointers into the right direction. Blizzard did definitely design SC2 and D3 with a new Battle.net in mind long before Activision entered the scene, one clear hint to that can be found at the first Q&A panel for D3 in 2008 where it was stated that the game will be online-only.
D3's development got an internal reboot in 2007. You can't really link early talks with Activision with Blizzard's own decision to develop the game from scratch online-only in 2007. Why? Because the merger finished in July 2008 and had to pass the EU's anti-trust commision first. So the proximity of both dates were a mere coincidence. Blizzard required a business change because frankly during these years their sales hit a low and they needed an additional operating income. Blizzard's drive into a new direction was one which they impelled on their own, they wanted to shift their focus from sales and subscriptions to microtransactions as well. The partnership with Activision was most likely beneficial in that they didn't have to reinvent the wheel. Looking at their reports it seems it was a wise decision on their part. Can't manage a big company through love only anyway unless you want to issue massive layoffs which also means that quality is going to suffer.
A lot major companies have been criticized for their sneaky tricks these days, Valve for taking 30% from Steam sales (makes sense to me but some people took/take offense on that), Activision and Blizzard are the masters of microtransactions and EA knows how to monetize through DLCs.