Only problem there is that Blizzard, really Vivendi holds 52% share in Blizzard Activision voting Kotick has CEO and President. Vivendi turned over most of their shops Sierra being the biggest to Activision leaving only really Blizzard as the sole entity in Vivendi and Bliazzard Activison as a holding company for them. At any time Blizzard did not like Kotick with 52% he would be gone. His power over Blizzard is limited to convincing them he is right in what he is doing. When they disagree Blizzard will do its own thing because they can control any shareholder votes. Also having 52% allows them the option to stop any trades of Blizzard property by Activison and can institute the sale of their "Blizzard shop" to another company with a simple majority vote.
Now just who controls that 52% is speculation because I do not know if it is separate members in Vivendi or if they own the shares as the entity Vivendi/Blizzard and thus make decision through an internal panel.
Any how Kotick is like a dog on a leash when it comes to Blizzard. He can bark all he wants, but they can yank the chain and choke him every now and then to show him who is boss if they want.
You're not reading it right. As said before, a lot of the original top talent in Blizzard that stood at the base of games like WC3, SC and WoW vanilla, already left in droves when their contracts allowed to, unsatisfied as they were with the course and ideas Vivendi had with Blizzard. Now Activision joined the mix.
That doesn't mean that the original Blizzard group is in control, it means they have now two leashes around their neck from two parties with very different business and game development philosophies from the one Blizzard had in origin.
But hey, only time will tell what effect this will have upon Blizzard. I mean, people will keep buying sequels and expansions anyway, eh?
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
You make several assumptions of which you have no supporting arguments nor facts to back. The flow of communication is one-way? Because Bobby is stuck between Blizz and big daddy V he is somehow 'not involved' with development? A 'middle-man'? Newsflash: *EVERYONE* is a middle man unless you're the lowliest grunt or the highest president. Kotick is NOT a 'pen-pusher and overpaid secretary' in the slightest: you are blatantly ignoring observable facts involving his degree of involvement with other noteworthy studios.
Thanks for the link :-) it's indeed sketching a picture as bleak as could be expected, considering the known circumstances. They first points in that document already say it all.
It seems, no matter if it's EA or Activision or Blizzard, or any other large enough company, the same kind of people come up on top. They should do great on Wall Street, with a 'money is everything and screw the rest' mentality. Ah well, nothing new, that's how things are.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Well I think you're all just trying to paint a bleak picture for the sake of it.
You will not see Activisions name on any Blizzard products, Lead designers dont speak to any one from Activision so how can they we influencing Blizzard and the bottom line blizzard are still sticking to there "done when it's done".
The fact that Mohain now reports to Bobby who then reports to the board is not an indication that bobby has an office in Blizzard HQ and is in any way invoived in the development of blizzard games, communication is purely one way. Bobby is a middle man, a pen pusher an over paid secretary that is all.
The day we see an Activision splash screen in a blizzard game is the day they have their hand in the cookie jar untill then I'll keep the faith.
Nowand I am being serious does any 1 want a Starcraft 2 beta key? I should be getting a spare one some time this week that I won in a competition (CVG) - its an EU key so EU peep only please. First to PM me get's it.
You *think*. An expressed opinion. But let's form those based on facts shall we?
Activision's name doesn't appear because of the clout that Blizzard has (clout, directly observable when considering the Blizzard name has stuck on the holding company tag). Blizzard can sit in the same ring and trade punches. Studios like Infinity Ward who didn't have a two-plus decade history of established games don't have that kind of clout. Under a merger (any merger, in this case- Activision-Blizzard's), you still have a chain of command. Ironic, or fitting, that the President of said merger came from Activision? Let me say that again: you still have a chain of command. For lawsuit reasons, fraud-protection etc, there is a trail of paperwork, orders, information relay that exists within that corporate structure. To glaze over the fact that at its head is Kotick... ya I don't know what to say to you.
Perhaps you're not up to speed on common business practices involving 'channels' and 'sections'?
If I wanted to influence your work, I don't need to get in your face about it. I say something to your boss. I say something to your boss' boss. I watch your boss like a hawk, and make him feel the pressure. Why dirty my own hands? Also, why micro-manage like that? Why not put a bud in the ear of an individual who is in a position of oversight for many different projects, rather than just the one you're slaving over?
You're asking for an Activision screen? Meh, whatever floats your boat. Some of us around here aren't wearing blinders when reviewing newsfeeds over the past decade involving nigh *ALL* of the designers from Diablo I and II jumping ship when Blizz was bought by Vivendi. Nigh *ALL* the original leads from WoW jumped ship after their contracts expired after patch 1.12 shipped. (Well damn, isn't that over half of Blizzard's IPs? That's odd.) Kotick firing the 2 geniuses behind Infinity Ward on a whim. Followed with newsfeeds of Kotick assigning 'someone to oversee' Morhaime... ya, some of us can read between the lines, and don't need it spelled out via Activision splash.
Highlight in red:
You make several assumptions of which you have no supporting arguments nor facts to back. The flow of communication is one-way? Because Bobby is stuck between Blizz and big daddy V he is somehow 'not involved' with development? A 'middle-man'? Newsflash: *EVERYONE* is a middle man unless you're the lowliest grunt or the highest president. Kotick is NOT a 'pen-pusher and overpaid secretary' in the slightest: you are blatantly ignoring observable facts involving his degree of involvement with other noteworthy studios.
But hey man- if you want to wear blinders and sing the tune of a spring day, that's your prerogative. But don't make erroneous claims as to specific corporate structures you know nothing about and commonplace business practices, distort or ignore facts to support your point of view. While it should be said that ultimately no one on these boards can say with absolute certainty what goes on inside of the brick and mortar in Irvine, CA, there is validity in using triangulation based on observable facts, trends, and newsfeeds regarding their business and business practices.
Like Wise ... see pink above, now calm down and have a cup of tea.
Who isn't calm? I'm just calling you out for postings that don't portray truth but pass it off as such. No one's worked up here. Matter of fact I'm sipping tea right now. How do they say it in your country again? ... Cheers?
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
All I have to say is that the game plays and looks awesome. If you are a former player who thinks it isn't that good well think again. My first day in beta and I had such a blast. Launch day is going to be awesome!
You make several assumptions of which you have no supporting arguments nor facts to back. The flow of communication is one-way? Because Bobby is stuck between Blizz and big daddy V he is somehow 'not involved' with development? A 'middle-man'? Newsflash: *EVERYONE* is a middle man unless you're the lowliest grunt or the highest president. Kotick is NOT a 'pen-pusher and overpaid secretary' in the slightest: you are blatantly ignoring observable facts involving his degree of involvement with other noteworthy studios.
Thanks for the link :-) it's indeed sketching a picture as bleak as could be expected, considering the known circumstances. They first points in that document already say it all.
It seems, no matter if it's EA or Activision or Blizzard, or any other large enough company, the same kind of people come up on top. They should do great on Wall Street, with a 'money is everything and screw the rest' mentality. Ah well, nothing new, that's how things are.
Anytime man. Whatever can be done to spread the word should be done. Less opinions more information.
And for what its worth, that newsclipping is but the tip of an iceberg if you care so much to do your own research on the interworkings of that company.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
Well I think you're all just trying to paint a bleak picture for the sake of it.
You will not see Activisions name on any Blizzard products, Lead designers dont speak to any one from Activision so how can they we influencing Blizzard and the bottom line blizzard are still sticking to there "done when it's done".
The fact that Mohain now reports to Bobby who then reports to the board is not an indication that bobby has an office in Blizzard HQ and is in any way invoived in the development of blizzard games, communication is purely one way. Bobby is a middle man, a pen pusher an over paid secretary that is all.
The day we see an Activision splash screen in a blizzard game is the day they have their hand in the cookie jar untill then I'll keep the faith.
Nowand I am being serious does any 1 want a Starcraft 2 beta key? I should be getting a spare one some time this week that I won in a competition (CVG) - its an EU key so EU peep only please. First to PM me get's it.
You *think*. An expressed opinion. But let's form those based on facts shall we?
Activision's name doesn't appear because of the clout that Blizzard has (clout, directly observable when considering the Blizzard name has stuck on the holding company tag). Blizzard can sit in the same ring and trade punches. Studios like Infinity Ward who didn't have a two-plus decade history of established games don't have that kind of clout. Under a merger (any merger, in this case- Activision-Blizzard's), you still have a chain of command. Ironic, or fitting, that the President of said merger came from Activision? Let me say that again: you still have a chain of command. For lawsuit reasons, fraud-protection etc, there is a trail of paperwork, orders, information relay that exists within that corporate structure. To glaze over the fact that at its head is Kotick... ya I don't know what to say to you.
Perhaps you're not up to speed on common business practices involving 'channels' and 'sections'?
If I wanted to influence your work, I don't need to get in your face about it. I say something to your boss. I say something to your boss' boss. I watch your boss like a hawk, and make him feel the pressure. Why dirty my own hands? Also, why micro-manage like that? Why not put a bud in the ear of an individual who is in a position of oversight for many different projects, rather than just the one you're slaving over?
You're asking for an Activision screen? Meh, whatever floats your boat. Some of us around here aren't wearing blinders when reviewing newsfeeds over the past decade involving nigh *ALL* of the designers from Diablo I and II jumping ship when Blizz was bought by Vivendi. Nigh *ALL* the original leads from WoW jumped ship after their contracts expired after patch 1.12 shipped. (Well damn, isn't that over half of Blizzard's IPs? That's odd.) Kotick firing the 2 geniuses behind Infinity Ward on a whim. Followed with newsfeeds of Kotick assigning 'someone to oversee' Morhaime... ya, some of us can read between the lines, and don't need it spelled out via Activision splash.
Highlight in red:
You make several assumptions of which you have no supporting arguments nor facts to back. The flow of communication is one-way? Because Bobby is stuck between Blizz and big daddy V he is somehow 'not involved' with development? A 'middle-man'? Newsflash: *EVERYONE* is a middle man unless you're the lowliest grunt or the highest president. Kotick is NOT a 'pen-pusher and overpaid secretary' in the slightest: you are blatantly ignoring observable facts involving his degree of involvement with other noteworthy studios.
But hey man- if you want to wear blinders and sing the tune of a spring day, that's your prerogative. But don't make erroneous claims as to specific corporate structures you know nothing about and commonplace business practices, distort or ignore facts to support your point of view. While it should be said that ultimately no one on these boards can say with absolute certainty what goes on inside of the brick and mortar in Irvine, CA, there is validity in using triangulation based on observable facts, trends, and newsfeeds regarding their business and business practices.
Like Wise ... see pink above, now calm down and have a cup of tea.
Who isn't calm? I'm just calling you out for postings that don't portray truth but pass it off as such. No one's worked up here. Matter of fact I'm sipping tea right now. How do they say it in your country again? ... Cheers?
No we say "tea's up" and extend our little pinky finger, then we all say "good show" and go play some cricket on the green and eat some cucumber sandwiches.
Who isn't calm? I'm just calling you out for postings that don't portray truth but pass it off as such. No one's worked up here. Matter of fact I'm sipping tea right now. How do they say it in your country again? ... Cheers?
No we say "tea's up" and extend our little pinky finger, then we all say "good show" and go play some cricket on the green and eat some cucumber sandwiches.
See, now I had it all wrong. I thought it was 'cheers' followed with 'golly good' followed with the playing of [true] football (since you guys invented the sport) and eat fish 'n chips.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
You make several assumptions of which you have no supporting arguments nor facts to back. The flow of communication is one-way? Because Bobby is stuck between Blizz and big daddy V he is somehow 'not involved' with development? A 'middle-man'? Newsflash: *EVERYONE* is a middle man unless you're the lowliest grunt or the highest president. Kotick is NOT a 'pen-pusher and overpaid secretary' in the slightest: you are blatantly ignoring observable facts involving his degree of involvement with other noteworthy studios.
Thanks for the link :-) it's indeed sketching a picture as bleak as could be expected, considering the known circumstances. They first points in that document already say it all.
It seems, no matter if it's EA or Activision or Blizzard, or any other large enough company, the same kind of people come up on top. They should do great on Wall Street, with a 'money is everything and screw the rest' mentality. Ah well, nothing new, that's how things are.
Anytime man. Whatever can be done to spread the word should be done. Less opinions more information.
And for what its worth, that newsclipping is but the tip of an iceberg if you care so much to do your own research on the interworkings of that company.
Nah, I think I have to decline, I want to keep at least some of my illusions intact ;-)
I think I'll just follow the headlines of gamasutra to see how things will develop, and I won't be buying any Blizzard games anymore without a doubt: I just buy the 1st and see if they really have put all their innovative creativeness in the singleplayer campaign as they said they would. If not, then screw the other 2, they can go on and milk some other people.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
The beta is great, there are definitely some new strategic aspects to the game. I think most of the naysayers here haven't really familiarized themselves with the new game mechanics and additions.
One thing I do have a problem with is the lack of multiplayer units, and the lack of diversity for strategies for a given faction on a given map. I'm hoping more units will be available in the release multiplayer build.
The beta is great, there are definitely some new strategic aspects to the game. I think most of the naysayers here haven't really familiarized themselves with the new game mechanics and additions.
Yep, there are. I already picked up a number of creative tactics just by watching some of the tournament finales on youtube
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Originally posted by zymurgeist Originally posted by BoA*
Originally posted by RendRegen
Originally posted by MMO_Doubter
Originally posted by Fdzzaigl The thing is, Starcraft is still unsurpassed in the category of RTS's with quick visceral action, it's got more micromanagement and better balance than almost anything out there imo. It's freaking hard to really improve on that.
Balance was amazing for the different races and units in the original. Just an incredible job in that regard. By far, the best thing about the game. You know something? I cannot believe they didn't come out with a fourth race. That is a huge disappointment to me. i was expecting a 4th race as well, but i think perhaps they didn't feel war3 was as balanced as starcraft was because they added a 4th. dunno really, only really good explanation i can accept. There has been much speculation on the 4th race. My theory is they planned a 4th race for SC2 but activision stepped in and made SC2 into 3 parts(One for each race), and saved the 4th race to be played in after the 3 SC2s come out. There have never been any plans for a fourth race. It's just not on the table. Activision does not own Blizzard. Vivendi owns both Activision and Blizzard. Vivendi has owned Blizzard since 1998.
I am sorry, but simply put, you are flat-out wrong, as is Horusra. Vivendi does not exist in any real form anymore. Blizzard does not either, really. They are simply using the name Blizzard because of the bran recognition amongst people, like you, who have no idea what happened. Which is upsetting, because this is all common knowledge if you wanted to look it up.
Vivendi purchased the then holding company for Blizzard, and took a strong reign in how things were done, and they did things in a very profit-oriented fashion, which upset most of the people making all the great games that are considered legendary, who then left. Actually this is all explained in a previous post in this thread. Check that post out.
The point is, Vivendi merged with Activision, forming Activision Blizzard. Some people from both Vivendi and Activision are in charge now, which may be where Horusra gets the information about shares held. But no one from Blizzard that had any part in making any of the previous Blizzard titles, up to and including WoW Vanilla, even works at Blizzard any more. They all left because the big corporate mentality stifled the creativity of gaming, which is their passion. They love making games, and they could not do it in peace there.
Ultimately, my point is that Blizzard is coasting on the work of other people, the "real" Blizzard if you like, and they are counting on people not knowing or finding out what really happened there. If people realised that Activision Blizzard was as eveil if not more evil even than Sony, they would probably be in some measure of trouble. Of course, the vast majority of the people that play WoW now and give them much of their money, as well as most of the people that play console games in general, have no knowledge, nor any desire to get knowledge, of the workings of the companies. And most of them just play what they are told as good, just as most people read what they are told is good, and say the art that other people said is good, is good. People are sheep, and Activision/Kotick are counting on that.
As for the actual fourth race comment, I think it is entirely possible that they will add a fourth race, perhaps even the Xel'naga. I believe they stole the idea for multiple full games from ANet (still taking ideas from the real Blizzard, you see), because they knew they could not simply add a straight fee to Battle.net, because people would be furious. So, since they could not have a fee, they used a business model they had seen work that did not use a subscription fee.
I believe they will add things beyond the three games because they are greedy and will look for any way they can to have people pay money, even without a subscription to the service. They are evil, and everything they touch has that imprinted on it. Can you not feel it?
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
I did notice how they've changed, and how I missed that Blizzard "X-factor" the last few years that I did feel in the D2-SC-WC3-WoW vanilla era. Indeed, some surfing further and you can find out how much really has changed with Blizzard... for those that really care.
Most people don't really care though who delivers them their games, as long as these are good.
But just assuming everything'll be alright and on the same quality level as 5-10 yrs ago, even when Blizzard's best people that were actually responsible for SC+WC3+WoW vanilla have left years ago with people like Kotick are now in control, just because it still has the Blizzard tag on it, that's a false assumption. The Blizzard games/expansions from the last few years and upcoming years compared to the original Starcraft, Warcraft 3 and WoW vanilla already shows the changes in Blizzard, and not necessarily for the better.
The horrible thing: I like playing around in the Starcraft universum, I wouldn't mind at all if there'd be more games in that universe, RTS, shooters, you name it. I just hope that despite everything the current batch of devs and designers can manage to deliver at least somewhat the epic feel that Starcraft and Brood War brought with them.
The goodwill of those games balances out the bad rep that the current Activision Blizzard is starting to build up... for now.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Zymurgeist, After reading what you have written there I think we are mostly on the same page about the workings of the corporations.
As for the holding company, it is just that. Saying Vivendi SA has anything to do with Activision Blizzard is like saying Sony has anything to do with SOE. You are right in that they have no idea how to run a game company, and they do not care so long as Kotick makes money. This means Kotick is in charge, however you slice it. His method of management is why everyone with talent left. Also remember that Condor was only working on Diablo at the behest of Blizzard from the beginning. They bought Condor then in order to have more control of the process, and because the people at Condor/Blizz North were of the same vein of developer as Blizzard at the time; at least, that is what they said when they made the purchase. Back then nothing Blizzard had was that huge, but there were big enough to catch the eye of the big companies. Essentially, they sold out.
Regardless of our discussion here, I think the important thing for anyone reading this thread to take away from this is simply this:
The Blizzard making StarCraft 2, the new MMO, and any future endeavour by the company named Activision Blizzard is comprised of none of the same people as the Blizzard that created the Diablo, WarCraft, and StarCraft franchises.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
I have Starcraft 2 Beta and its exactly how i wanted it to be. It's pretty much the same game as the orginal starcraft, but with new features, units, interface, and better control management. If you are looking for new innovated RTS, this isn't the game for you.
All I have to say is that July 27th 2010 will be a good day. Thats the release day of SC2, and im getting excited!
I stopped getting excited about Starcraft 2 release as a result of the huge delays Blizzard have put on it already. Yes I know WoW is their cash cow and they don't want anything getting in its way until it comes towards the end of its expanded lifespan, but SC2 has been hurt by having such a long period of development and testing. I think it a good RTS game, and will play it and enjoy, but I think it won't be remember as the game of 2010.
I also think some of the above are being a little unfair about Blizzard no longer having creative "gaming soul', Dustin Browder had a great RTS track record, and has produced a polished game that will be simple and fun RTS gaming.
Vivendi SA owns controling interest (~52%) in Activision Blizzard.
Activision Blizzard is the holding company of both Activision and Blizzard Entertainment.
Blizzard Entertainment retains its management under this merger. Leaders of Activision took control of Activision Blizzard.
Most of the talent that began Blizzard Entertainment and made it what it is today is gone. They went to many different studios. Some were successful and others were not.
So many people are calling Blizzard Entertainment a different company. Fact is, it is and it isn't. Talent changes and new talent comes in and old talent moves on.
Did anyone now who is talking about how Blizzard isn't what it used to be buy any old Blizzard product or because of the people who made them? Or did you buy it because of the quality of game?
Does it matter what names are on the credit roll if you enjoy the game? Does it matter who's pockets are stuffed when you buy it? Are you really not going to buy a game because of the corporate structure of the game?
And lastly, for anyone who has any issue with one company stealing ideas from another company, you better do a whole lot of research on all of the products and services you use on a daily basis.
And lastly, for anyone who has any issue with one company stealing ideas from another company, you better do a whole lot of research on all of the products and services you use on a daily basis.
Vivendi SA owns controling interest (~52%) in Activision Blizzard.
Activision Blizzard is the holding company of both Activision and Blizzard Entertainment.
Blizzard Entertainment retains its management under this merger. Leaders of Activision took control of Activision Blizzard.
Most of the talent that began Blizzard Entertainment and made it what it is today is gone. They went to many different studios. Some were successful and others were not.
So many people are calling Blizzard Entertainment a different company. Fact is, it is and it isn't. Talent changes and new talent comes in and old talent moves on.
Did anyone now who is talking about how Blizzard isn't what it used to be buy any old Blizzard product or because of the people who made them? Or did you buy it because of the quality of game?
Does it matter what names are on the credit roll if you enjoy the game? Does it matter who's pockets are stuffed when you buy it? Are you really not going to buy a game because of the corporate structure of the game?
And lastly, for anyone who has any issue with one company stealing ideas from another company, you better do a whole lot of research on all of the products and services you use on a daily basis.
Most of the talent that made Blizzard very successful 10 years ago is gone.
Most of the talent that made Blizzard very successful 10 years ago is gone.
I'm hoping that Blizzard still has at least a remnant of their former glory tucked away and working hard on their next MMO.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Comments
You're not reading it right. As said before, a lot of the original top talent in Blizzard that stood at the base of games like WC3, SC and WoW vanilla, already left in droves when their contracts allowed to, unsatisfied as they were with the course and ideas Vivendi had with Blizzard. Now Activision joined the mix.
That doesn't mean that the original Blizzard group is in control, it means they have now two leashes around their neck from two parties with very different business and game development philosophies from the one Blizzard had in origin.
But hey, only time will tell what effect this will have upon Blizzard. I mean, people will keep buying sequels and expansions anyway, eh?
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Thanks for the link :-) it's indeed sketching a picture as bleak as could be expected, considering the known circumstances. They first points in that document already say it all.
It seems, no matter if it's EA or Activision or Blizzard, or any other large enough company, the same kind of people come up on top. They should do great on Wall Street, with a 'money is everything and screw the rest' mentality. Ah well, nothing new, that's how things are.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Who isn't calm? I'm just calling you out for postings that don't portray truth but pass it off as such. No one's worked up here. Matter of fact I'm sipping tea right now. How do they say it in your country again? ... Cheers?
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
Same ol' m8... same ol'...
Anytime man. Whatever can be done to spread the word should be done. Less opinions more information.
And for what its worth, that newsclipping is but the tip of an iceberg if you care so much to do your own research on the interworkings of that company.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
No we say "tea's up" and extend our little pinky finger, then we all say "good show" and go play some cricket on the green and eat some cucumber sandwiches.
See, now I had it all wrong. I thought it was 'cheers' followed with 'golly good' followed with the playing of [true] football (since you guys invented the sport) and eat fish 'n chips.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
Nah, I think I have to decline, I want to keep at least some of my illusions intact ;-)
I think I'll just follow the headlines of gamasutra to see how things will develop, and I won't be buying any Blizzard games anymore without a doubt: I just buy the 1st and see if they really have put all their innovative creativeness in the singleplayer campaign as they said they would. If not, then screw the other 2, they can go on and milk some other people.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
The beta is great, there are definitely some new strategic aspects to the game. I think most of the naysayers here haven't really familiarized themselves with the new game mechanics and additions.
One thing I do have a problem with is the lack of multiplayer units, and the lack of diversity for strategies for a given faction on a given map. I'm hoping more units will be available in the release multiplayer build.
Yep, there are. I already picked up a number of creative tactics just by watching some of the tournament finales on youtube
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
You know something? I cannot believe they didn't come out with a fourth race. That is a huge disappointment to me.
i was expecting a 4th race as well, but i think perhaps they didn't feel war3 was as balanced as starcraft was because they added a 4th. dunno really, only really good explanation i can accept.
There has been much speculation on the 4th race. My theory is they planned a 4th race for SC2 but activision stepped in and made SC2 into 3 parts(One for each race), and saved the 4th race to be played in after the 3 SC2s come out.
There have never been any plans for a fourth race. It's just not on the table. Activision does not own Blizzard. Vivendi owns both Activision and Blizzard. Vivendi has owned Blizzard since 1998.
I am sorry, but simply put, you are flat-out wrong, as is Horusra. Vivendi does not exist in any real form anymore. Blizzard does not either, really. They are simply using the name Blizzard because of the bran recognition amongst people, like you, who have no idea what happened. Which is upsetting, because this is all common knowledge if you wanted to look it up.
Vivendi purchased the then holding company for Blizzard, and took a strong reign in how things were done, and they did things in a very profit-oriented fashion, which upset most of the people making all the great games that are considered legendary, who then left. Actually this is all explained in a previous post in this thread. Check that post out.
The point is, Vivendi merged with Activision, forming Activision Blizzard. Some people from both Vivendi and Activision are in charge now, which may be where Horusra gets the information about shares held. But no one from Blizzard that had any part in making any of the previous Blizzard titles, up to and including WoW Vanilla, even works at Blizzard any more. They all left because the big corporate mentality stifled the creativity of gaming, which is their passion. They love making games, and they could not do it in peace there.
Ultimately, my point is that Blizzard is coasting on the work of other people, the "real" Blizzard if you like, and they are counting on people not knowing or finding out what really happened there. If people realised that Activision Blizzard was as eveil if not more evil even than Sony, they would probably be in some measure of trouble. Of course, the vast majority of the people that play WoW now and give them much of their money, as well as most of the people that play console games in general, have no knowledge, nor any desire to get knowledge, of the workings of the companies. And most of them just play what they are told as good, just as most people read what they are told is good, and say the art that other people said is good, is good. People are sheep, and Activision/Kotick are counting on that.
As for the actual fourth race comment, I think it is entirely possible that they will add a fourth race, perhaps even the Xel'naga. I believe they stole the idea for multiple full games from ANet (still taking ideas from the real Blizzard, you see), because they knew they could not simply add a straight fee to Battle.net, because people would be furious. So, since they could not have a fee, they used a business model they had seen work that did not use a subscription fee.
I believe they will add things beyond the three games because they are greedy and will look for any way they can to have people pay money, even without a subscription to the service. They are evil, and everything they touch has that imprinted on it. Can you not feel it?
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
I did notice how they've changed, and how I missed that Blizzard "X-factor" the last few years that I did feel in the D2-SC-WC3-WoW vanilla era. Indeed, some surfing further and you can find out how much really has changed with Blizzard... for those that really care.
Most people don't really care though who delivers them their games, as long as these are good.
But just assuming everything'll be alright and on the same quality level as 5-10 yrs ago, even when Blizzard's best people that were actually responsible for SC+WC3+WoW vanilla have left years ago with people like Kotick are now in control, just because it still has the Blizzard tag on it, that's a false assumption. The Blizzard games/expansions from the last few years and upcoming years compared to the original Starcraft, Warcraft 3 and WoW vanilla already shows the changes in Blizzard, and not necessarily for the better.
The horrible thing: I like playing around in the Starcraft universum, I wouldn't mind at all if there'd be more games in that universe, RTS, shooters, you name it. I just hope that despite everything the current batch of devs and designers can manage to deliver at least somewhat the epic feel that Starcraft and Brood War brought with them.
The goodwill of those games balances out the bad rep that the current Activision Blizzard is starting to build up... for now.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Zymurgeist, After reading what you have written there I think we are mostly on the same page about the workings of the corporations.
As for the holding company, it is just that. Saying Vivendi SA has anything to do with Activision Blizzard is like saying Sony has anything to do with SOE. You are right in that they have no idea how to run a game company, and they do not care so long as Kotick makes money. This means Kotick is in charge, however you slice it. His method of management is why everyone with talent left. Also remember that Condor was only working on Diablo at the behest of Blizzard from the beginning. They bought Condor then in order to have more control of the process, and because the people at Condor/Blizz North were of the same vein of developer as Blizzard at the time; at least, that is what they said when they made the purchase. Back then nothing Blizzard had was that huge, but there were big enough to catch the eye of the big companies. Essentially, they sold out.
Regardless of our discussion here, I think the important thing for anyone reading this thread to take away from this is simply this:
The Blizzard making StarCraft 2, the new MMO, and any future endeavour by the company named Activision Blizzard is comprised of none of the same people as the Blizzard that created the Diablo, WarCraft, and StarCraft franchises.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
All I have to say is that July 27th 2010 will be a good day. Thats the release day of SC2, and im getting excited!
I have Starcraft 2 Beta and its exactly how i wanted it to be. It's pretty much the same game as the orginal starcraft, but with new features, units, interface, and better control management. If you are looking for new innovated RTS, this isn't the game for you.
Go Starcraft 2
I stopped getting excited about Starcraft 2 release as a result of the huge delays Blizzard have put on it already. Yes I know WoW is their cash cow and they don't want anything getting in its way until it comes towards the end of its expanded lifespan, but SC2 has been hurt by having such a long period of development and testing. I think it a good RTS game, and will play it and enjoy, but I think it won't be remember as the game of 2010.
I also think some of the above are being a little unfair about Blizzard no longer having creative "gaming soul', Dustin Browder had a great RTS track record, and has produced a polished game that will be simple and fun RTS gaming.
so yea if any1 has an extra beta key id love it zrektt@yahoo.com
Such A GOOD GAME!!!! Loved the original too though, that was legit i still play it.
SC 1 is infinitely superior to SC2. Period.
Starcraft 2 is awesome ;D
This is just funny. The comments and fights.
Vivendi SA owns controling interest (~52%) in Activision Blizzard.
Activision Blizzard is the holding company of both Activision and Blizzard Entertainment.
Blizzard Entertainment retains its management under this merger. Leaders of Activision took control of Activision Blizzard.
Most of the talent that began Blizzard Entertainment and made it what it is today is gone. They went to many different studios. Some were successful and others were not.
So many people are calling Blizzard Entertainment a different company. Fact is, it is and it isn't. Talent changes and new talent comes in and old talent moves on.
Did anyone now who is talking about how Blizzard isn't what it used to be buy any old Blizzard product or because of the people who made them? Or did you buy it because of the quality of game?
Does it matter what names are on the credit roll if you enjoy the game? Does it matter who's pockets are stuffed when you buy it? Are you really not going to buy a game because of the corporate structure of the game?
And lastly, for anyone who has any issue with one company stealing ideas from another company, you better do a whole lot of research on all of the products and services you use on a daily basis.
QFT. LotR, man, LotR.
Most of the talent that made Blizzard very successful 10 years ago is gone.
I'm hoping that Blizzard still has at least a remnant of their former glory tucked away and working hard on their next MMO.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb