I still can't believe they butchered WC3:reforged so badly. It could have been a massive boon for them were it not for the hideously greedy ToS along with all the technical issues and straight up downgrades from the original in terms of multiplayer. There have to be some epic stories of mismanagement or hubris, if only someone would tell them.
It's incredible that a "remaster" could destroy a game like that. I can't even go play a game that I love, a game from my childhood, with an art style and gameplay that still holds up unless I torrent the old client and connect to third-party multiplayer servers. For artists, there's a concept of "moral rights". Art may not be destroyed senselessly, no matter who owns it, because it goes against the human creative sp…
Blizzard has lost almost 29% of its overall active playerbase in three years
151–160 of 557 posts
Re: Blizzard has lost almost 29% of its overall active playerbase in three years
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Starcraft 2 is basically dead. WC3 remastered flopped Paradoxically, I've noticed an uptick of new creative Starcraft 2 content on Youtube (similar to those "can you beat the game by doing [insert crazy premise here]" types of videos you see in the Mario community). I think the two company direction things that were noticeable for me were that they decided to try to embrace two major cop-outs: milking cash shop (sk…
> It's like they fundamentally gave up being a game company, and decided to be a collectibles company instead. If there's one business lesson to take from the history of the video game industry, it's that being a video game company is extremely unreliable. Being a collectibles company is much more reliable. As the company leaders look for ways to make their business endure, it's natural for them to turn to more relia…
On the other hand, Mario keeps reinventing the adventure genre with creative mechanics, even though storyline/CGI of each new game is basically non-existent compared to Blizzard's capabilities. WoW obviously did very well in spinning the Warcraft lore into new directions, and Starcraft Ghost was also highly anticipated before the vaporware lost its steam. I think the main difference between Nintendo and Blizzard - and why Nintendo still commands such strong brands - is Nintendo plays the long term game, never getting drunk on a single unicorn success.
Re: Blizzard has lost almost 29% of its overall active playerbase in three years
#153"Do you guys not have phones?" -Blizzard staff in 2018, in response to booing fans upset that Blizzard wouldn't make a PC version of a game those same fans obviously wanted to play. This company has been contemptuous of their players for years. They fell into that classic trap of "If we [do something that will alienate all our customers] we can get 10x as many customers from [untapped market]" As anybody should have…
"Trust me, you think you want it, but you don't" - Blizzard, about vanilla WoW, a year before releasing WoW Classic.
There's no context as to what each player wants. The loop just works across the whole player base, not really aimed towards any context of the player.
Re: Blizzard has lost almost 29% of its overall active playerbase in three years
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
In terms of WoW, I'm sure a lot of it is focusing on the top raiding guilds and leaving the casual player with few rewarding activities. Further, one of their most cherished metrics is how much time people spend doing a certain activity. Instead of making those activities more fun and rewarding, they made them take longer to complete and with fewer rewards. To top it all off, they are nearly completely deaf to their…
Definitely agree and a lot of the popular WoW content creators (Bellular, T&E, etc.) seem to agree. They don't always mention casuals, but lack of progression is a major issue, particularly in Shadowlands. As a person spending too much time playing, you are basically forced to do non-LFR raiding, rated PvP, or mythic+ dungeons to actually progress your gear at all. Not to mention they seem to hate flying yet keep cre…
Yes, this is just an ongoing disaster. My sense from their communications over the years is that, when players fly through zones, that hurts the feelings of the artists, which Blizzard doesn't like.
> There aren't clear routes between common locations like roads in Skyrim.
I actually really liked how roads were handled in original WoW. They twist and turn, and yet somehow they're always faster than going offroad. And they were reliably safe -- until in Duskwood there's a wolf right on the middle of the road, which added to the atmosphere for me.
For the latest expansion, my main complaint is that they provide a bunch of cosmetic features, which they know are a draw -- but you can't use the cosmetics on your other characters. All shadowlands cosmetics are restricted to characters who belong to the particular faction. (Which is, overwhelmingly, just the specific character who unlocked it.) I characterized this once in guild chat as "welcome to Shadowlands! To enjoy this expansion's new content, please wait for the next expansion to release", and got many pained agreements.
You can't use your mail-wearing toon to unlock plate cosmetics, either. You need to go through the entire rep grind, again, if you want two sets of cosmetics from the same vendor.
Re: Blizzard has lost almost 29% of its overall active playerbase in three years
#155Re: Blizzard has lost almost 29% of its overall active playerbase in three years
#156"Do you guys not have phones?" -Blizzard staff in 2018, in response to booing fans upset that Blizzard wouldn't make a PC version of a game those same fans obviously wanted to play. This company has been contemptuous of their players for years. They fell into that classic trap of "If we [do something that will alienate all our customers] we can get 10x as many customers from [untapped market]" As anybody should have…
There's fair criticism to how it monetizes but it still dominates its category for a reason, they continue to own it like the MMO genre with WoW.
I don't know where I'm going with this, I guess just that between Overwatch and Hearthstone I actually mostly enjoyed this recent era of Blizzard and I'm more hopeful for what's next. I didn't feel contempt from them playing these games, I felt that old Blizzard spark.
Re: Blizzard has lost almost 29% of its overall active playerbase in three years
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blizzard kinda killed the RTS genre with Starcraft 1. It's basically the perfect RTS so everything that came after it seems inferior. Even Starcraft 2. There are still niches for specialized audiences, like historical battles with a more strategic bent, but for mass market RTS nothing has been able to beat a 23 year old game.
I love BW but it's still far from perfect. Even if things like single build select and max 12 unit select were okay at the time and worked decently within the game's design, they're still incredibly clunky choices. Honestly, even playing it in its heydey, I already disliked the 12 unit select. > It's basically the perfect RTS so everything that came after it seems inferior. Even Starcraft 2. SC2 had a bunch of design…
Pretty much everyone who used air-units in SC1 abused the "tight" formations of Muta-stacks (or other SC:BW air units). In most fights: tight formations are incredibly superior to loose formations. (Obviously Corsairs / Valkyries changed that, but typical hit-and-run tactics are better when stacked)
Automatically having tight stacks in SC2 meant the skill-curve of tight formations was brought down: so that beginners can benefit from the strategy with less practice. Advanced players can still use their superior APM to loosen the formations (if they go up against anti-death ball units, like Siege Tanks or Banelings).
Re: Blizzard has lost almost 29% of its overall active playerbase in three years
#158Maybe I'm just in the HN echochamber, but this really feels like a case of death by MBA.
Re: Blizzard has lost almost 29% of its overall active playerbase in three years
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, the once famous Blizzard polish is all but reversed - Warcraft 3 Reforged speaks for itself, but also looking into World of Warcraft commentary, it has become common to expect systems present in the game at launch to require major fixes or overhauls over the coming patches. The very fact that players and commentators alike have grown to expect this speaks volumes to me about the changing perception.
This is something that's common across the entire industry (e.g. Cyberpunk 2077, Fallout 76 as the worst offenders). Testing costs a lot of money, automated testing isn't widely spread / feasible, and the cost of distributing patches is low - so many studios opt for the economic advantage of using their players as guinea pigs.
The last 6-8 years of WoW have basically been 1 long paid, subscription based beta test.
Re: Blizzard has lost almost 29% of its overall active playerbase in three years
#160Our software company is not even 10 people big and we are able to deliver extremely high quality software multiple times per day to many customers, while supporting a wide range of business contexts. The annual budget for our whole team is something like $750k. Our part of the AWS bill is less than $400/m, but we seem to make due and get shit done.
Blizzard in particular has something like 2 billion dollars in free cash flow to work with. Obviously not exactly the same problem domain but effectively the same sort of cost structure around core product development. Nothing ever works out linear at scales like this, but even assuming a 10x loss in efficiencies of scale (i.e. due to organizational overhead), you would still have resources to run ~200 copies of our software team in parallel on ~200 unique projects. How many teams would have to succeed before that model pays off? 1/200 figuring out how to build a proper WoW killer could get the job done...
To Blizzard I say: Take all that capital the gaming community has been injecting into your money bin for the last 2 decades, and invest in an internal startup culture. Spin out tens or hundreds of smaller teams with their own independent creative direction to try out new ideas. If you find some hits on one of these teams, maybe you take a less successful team and add their resources to the more successful one. In this way, you can dramatically expand the portfolio & diversity of the product base. This has caveats for any "common" creative vision, but judging by the comments in this thread, you may want to re-evaluate any convictions around that idea.