Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blizzard has lost almost 29% of its overall active playerbase in three years

massivelyop.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 557 posts

Re: Blizzard has lost almost 29% of its overall active playerbase in three years

#431

Post by bombcar »

dbg31415 wrote: post #354

Gonna say what the 14-year-old me would have said... Maybe if they took some of the CEO pay and put it into game development and community building... they wouldn't be losing players. > https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2021-03-17-activision... As a long-time fan of Blizzard games... have to say... what others have said mostly in here. WoW... peaked in like 2010. They know this, and that's why they re-release Wo…

I feel the esports is a big part of why SC2 had issues - it was better when Blizzard wasn’t trying to make an esports platform and instead just made a game.

Re: Blizzard has lost almost 29% of its overall active playerbase in three years

#432

Post by jrockway »

void_mint wrote: post #40
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #8

I can't say what's driving all the playerbase losses but: They stopped development on Diablo 3 a long time ago. It doesn't have the staying power of more modern online games where new content is added continuously. They stopped development on HotS, which never achieved the same level of pull as League of Legends. Overwatch faces stiff competition from Valorant and other competitive small team FPSes, and also has over…

> I can't say what's driving all the playerbase losses but: "The Blizzard Way" doesn't work anymore. Fortnite releases content monthly/quarterly. Massive updates with huge out-of-game tie-ins, changing worlds, in-game events, etc. Other games have changed to match/compete. CoD and Valorant both implement similar season-pass style systems. Blizzard, on the other hand, insists on delaying/cancelling games, releasing "o…

Overwatch had that April Fools card last month, and it was a ton of fun. They should do something like that every month -- shake up the core of the game for no good reason whatsoever. There's no way to monetize that, though, so I guess it's not a priority. That's the downside, for users, of the "buy once" model.

Unlike most people here, I have fun pretty much every time I open the game. It's exactly my style. Nearly 100% uptime where you're gaming. Lots of dumb voice lines and silly characters. Always something to do or see or be amused by. I didn't play computer games at all before Overwatch, I bought it on a whim, and it became my thing. There is always some way to play better, a new hero to explore, new custom games, new friends to meet, etc. I'm still getting a lot of value for that initial $40, probably more value than I've ever gotten out of anything.

At least for me, Blizzard made something I didn't even know I wanted. That is really impressive for a Fortune 500 company.

Re: Blizzard has lost almost 29% of its overall active playerbase in three years

#433

Post by Kaze404 »

raydev wrote: post #348
gizmo385 wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Errant Signal has a great video [1] dissecting the appeal and breadth of content in Fortnite. It's not my cup of tea, but I certainly don't think you can call it "shallow". On the other side, Folding Ideas has a great video [2] (that the Errant Signal video references) dissecting the monetization systems in Fortnite and their negative aspects. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNukmNDq60Q [2] https://www.yo…

Absolutely, I won't argue the dark patterns to get kids to spend their parents' money. It's kinda gross that it's simply the industry standard now. I just know it's by far the most interesting competitive real time game I've played in years.

Can you expand on what about it is so interesting to you? My only experience with Fortnite is watching my 13 year old brother practice crazy fast building, and every time I can't help but wonder why they'd rather play that than Apex Legends. I sincerely don't understand.

Re: Blizzard has lost almost 29% of its overall active playerbase in three years

#434

Post by _the_inflator »

freshair wrote: post #29

"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…

Yes and no.

I see your point and agree totally on the "want to play" level.

However it is really legit to consider new options. After all Blizzard's games are community driven - and why not try to increase the community?

Execution was really bad. That's where I agree again. So it is a tough business after all. Like show business. Have a look at Star Wars for example.

Re: Blizzard has lost almost 29% of its overall active playerbase in three years

#435

Post by jrockway »

void_mint wrote: post #415
xxpor wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The meta is almost completely dependent on the hero balance at the time IME though, outside of Havana always having snipers at the top levels.

Not really. Blizzard's balance team is shockingly bad. Metas usually exist for huge periods of time (GOATS lasted over a year, as did moth, as did dive). It is repetitive to play the same maps, with the same heroes, for a year.

I hear that a lot. Why keep playing? Why play the meta? The onetricks seem to do well no matter what the meta is.

A lot of players feel forced to play the meta. Then a few don't, and the meta changes.

Re: Blizzard has lost almost 29% of its overall active playerbase in three years

#436

Post by lightfooted »

void_mint wrote: post #40
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #8

I can't say what's driving all the playerbase losses but: They stopped development on Diablo 3 a long time ago. It doesn't have the staying power of more modern online games where new content is added continuously. They stopped development on HotS, which never achieved the same level of pull as League of Legends. Overwatch faces stiff competition from Valorant and other competitive small team FPSes, and also has over…

> I can't say what's driving all the playerbase losses but: "The Blizzard Way" doesn't work anymore. Fortnite releases content monthly/quarterly. Massive updates with huge out-of-game tie-ins, changing worlds, in-game events, etc. Other games have changed to match/compete. CoD and Valorant both implement similar season-pass style systems. Blizzard, on the other hand, insists on delaying/cancelling games, releasing "o…

> Blizzard, on the other hand, insists on delaying/cancelling games, releasing "only when ready"

Starcraft Ghost :(

Re: Blizzard has lost almost 29% of its overall active playerbase in three years

#437

Post by void_mint »

bick_nyers wrote: post #367
void_mint wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't say what's driving all the playerbase losses but: "The Blizzard Way" doesn't work anymore. Fortnite releases content monthly/quarterly. Massive updates with huge out-of-game tie-ins, changing worlds, in-game events, etc. Other games have changed to match/compete. CoD and Valorant both implement similar season-pass style systems. Blizzard, on the other hand, insists on delaying/cancelling games, releasing "o…

The problem is that "The Blizzard Way" is not what Activision Blizzard has actually been doing for the past many years. Diablo 3 was a rocky launch, and the always online requirement was indicative of poor choices by management. Recall, that they wanted a healthy real money auction house (presumably to take their percentage off the top), and always online is typically utilized to block piracy. Of course, anyone with…

> The problem is that "The Blizzard Way" is not what Activision Blizzard has actually been doing for the past many years.

This isn't true though. Delaying (and not announcing) Diablo 4 is typical "Blizzard Way" nonsense. Same with the Overwatch content drought.

> Overwatch you would be surprised to know has some very impressive player numbers even now, for a game that gets no updates. Now that Jeff Kaplan is gone, I'm afraid the last of the best of original Blizzard are gone. I really, really, really hope Overwatch 2 is good. I will give it a few solid chances and I will revisit it. I fear the worst though, I don't think Jeff would leave his baby like that.

I wouldn't be surprised about anything related to Overwatch as I have played competitively/semi competitively since the beta. Overwatch is kind of an excellent example of a good idea implemented so poorly it's really sad to watch. I don't think Jeff Kaplan was a great game director.

> The story of Activision Blizzard is monetization for the sake of monetization alone, and management decisions formed solely on the basis that they sound good to other managers. Overwatch had the pleasure of being shielded by Jeff Kaplan

You've convinced yourself of a very flowery narrative about Overwatch and Jeff Kaplan that I just don't think is based in reality. It's pretty bad from a content standpoint, terrible from a balance standpoint, doing horribly as an esport, about to pump out a "sequel" that is actually just fluff content. I think it's about as mismanaged as I can imagine.

Re: Blizzard has lost almost 29% of its overall active playerbase in three years

#438

Post by jrockway »

Retric wrote: post #358
xxpor wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The meta is almost completely dependent on the hero balance at the time IME though, outside of Havana always having snipers at the top levels.

StarCraft I meta evolved for decades even though blizzard stopped updating the game. It’s hard to get that kind of depth from a FPS game, but CSGO’s Dust II is iconic in part due to it’s constant refinement but also near perfect balance adds strategic depth when players explore subtle interactions.

I think you could revert Overwatch to the launch day build, and people would play it a lot differently now than they did back then. The community learning to play the game will happen no matter what balance changes show up on the backend; balance changes just force people out of their local maximum towards a new higher local maximum. But, you could do that without balance changes. Just try something new. There is probably a better strategy out there.

Re: Blizzard has lost almost 29% of its overall active playerbase in three years

#439

Post by blibble »

EugeneOZ wrote: post #411
blibble wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you have a warped view of how the MMR/SR systems function essentially all that matters is your win-rate, if you can win more than 50% of your games over a reasonable stretch of time your MMR will increase and your SR will follow it performance based SR is only a very small bonus (up-to diamond) initial placement is essentially a guess: over 25 or so games your MMR will converge to where you're supposed to be (4200 su…

you also have a warped understanding of SR and climbing. >50% winrate doesn't guarantee climbing, because SR change is not constant and depends in your chance to win in every particular match. The better you play the lower SR reward (because your chance to win is higher). That's exactly why elo hell exists and that's exactly why purchasing a new account allows you to climb instantly. And the last fact is the reason w…

I understand the system perfectly

true: SR change isn't constant, delta SR after a game is based on the difference between your MMR and SR

SR is essentially irrelevant, MMR is the only number that matters

your SR oscillates around your MMR, essentially at random

MMR also has a confidence value, "elo hell" is where you can't win enough to unstick the confidence value

if you win more than 50% consistently the confidence value will drop, your MMR will increase, then your SR will follow it

a new account has a zero value for the confidence, which is why the MMR (and SR that follows it) is more volatile, at least to begin with

Re: Blizzard has lost almost 29% of its overall active playerbase in three years

#440

Post by jrockway »

void_mint wrote: post #437
bick_nyers wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that "The Blizzard Way" is not what Activision Blizzard has actually been doing for the past many years. Diablo 3 was a rocky launch, and the always online requirement was indicative of poor choices by management. Recall, that they wanted a healthy real money auction house (presumably to take their percentage off the top), and always online is typically utilized to block piracy. Of course, anyone with…

> The problem is that "The Blizzard Way" is not what Activision Blizzard has actually been doing for the past many years. This isn't true though. Delaying (and not announcing) Diablo 4 is typical "Blizzard Way" nonsense. Same with the Overwatch content drought. > Overwatch you would be surprised to know has some very impressive player numbers even now, for a game that gets no updates. Now that Jeff Kaplan is gone, I'…

I don't think Jeff had much involvement in the esports aspect. He seems like he wanted to make a game for casual gamers just having fun with friends, but Activision wanted the sponsorship revenue from an esports league. Despite all odds, they did make something that the best professionals in the world can play, while still being fun for people that have no idea what's going on.

I tried to get into Overwatch League, but found it hard to watch. All the rich colors and scenery of the game drowned out by the ugly monochrome of team colors. All the rich sound effects of the game drowned out by the world's most annoying casters. (Seriously, who hired these people!? Are real sports like this?) All the while not fixing obvious UI bugs (you will be watching first person through someone's camera and it will say "STOP THE PAYLOAD" at the top, but that person is actually pushing the payload). If they tried to make it bad, they did a great job. I don't think Jeff was at the controls pushing to erase his artists' choice of colors and sound. I think he did the minimum required to not get fired, and it shows there.

Jeff's a good dude, and I do worry about the future of the game without him. I can easily see a world where they don't even let normal people play the game, and they just make you subscribe to watching vetted pros play the game.

Post reply on HN