Blizzard Business Model

[Inkidu]

I'm probably the only person who give a care, or who's actually looked  at Blizzard's apparent business strategy. It's fairly dangerous if it catches on too. Blizzard produced W.O.W. I'm certain that's where a large majority of their cash income resides. With W.O.W. backing all their RnD they can totally produce whatever they want.

I don't care if Wings of Liberty is good or bad, or if Diablo 3 is good or bad. I'm pointing out that Blizzard hasn't produced anything new since W.O.W. and that's technically not new. They don't have to come out with anything new either. Their name will sell whatever they damn well want.

Have you noticed that all Blizzard games aren't focused on building appeal or getting new fans but making money? I'm all for that to a point. You've got to make money, but you can't neglect the creative side of things. Eventually their model is going to collapse. They'll someday be those guys who released several updates of Star Craft or Diablo. W.O.W. will eventually end. Immortal appeal is rare and usually takes hundreds of years.

I used to like Blizzard but when I realized they weren't really doing anything new. They bored me. Seriously all their games are to make money in multiplayer. They've not got the gall or the inclination to make anything purely single player. Though they do have the money.

[Serephino]

I still remember when people were pissed when Diablo 3 came out and it was very WoWish. 

I don't like Blizzard at all.  My boyfriend used to sing their praises, but then they started making money.  They didn't do anything about the farmer problem because the farmers were paying for their accounts.  And when they started stealing accounts Blizzard didn't try that hard to help you because they figured if you lost your account you would go buy I knew one. 

In summary; they were a good company before they started getting rich and famous.  Now all they see is dollar signs. 

[Wolfy]

I'm probably the only person who give a care, or who's actually looked  at Blizzard's apparent business strategy. It's fairly dangerous if it catches on too. Blizzard produced W.O.W. I'm certain that's where a large majority of their cash income resides. With W.O.W. backing all their RnD they can totally produce whatever they want.

I don't care if Wings of Liberty is good or bad, or if Diablo 3 is good or bad. I'm pointing out that Blizzard hasn't produced anything new since W.O.W. and that's technically not new. They don't have to come out with anything new either. Their name will sell whatever they damn well want.

Have you noticed that all Blizzard games aren't focused on building appeal or getting new fans but making money? I'm all for that to a point. You've got to make money, but you can't neglect the creative side of things. Eventually their model is going to collapse. They'll someday be those guys who released several updates of Star Craft or Diablo. W.O.W. will eventually end. Immortal appeal is rare and usually takes hundreds of years.

I used to like Blizzard but when I realized they weren't really doing anything new. They bored me. Seriously all their games are to make money in multiplayer. They've not got the gall or the inclination to make anything purely single player. Though they do have the money.

So you're saying WoW will be around for hundreds of years?

It's good to know my Azeroth counter part will out live me by miles....now if only we could invent a technology to transfer our minds into computers...

[Drow Denizen]

One thing to keep in mind is that Blizzard is not the same company it used to be. The division that produced all the Diablo series (Blizzard North) was closed down and is now defunct. This was when Blizzard became ActivisionBlizzard, owned by Vivendi SA - that's big business, look them up.

So it's not at all surprising that Blizzard's single-minded focus seems to be on profit and milking popular cash-cow franchises, they're not an independent studio any longer, they're owned by a huge corporation that bought them to make money, not to make games.

[meikle]

You don't need to come out with new stuff when every product you release is amazing.

I mean, I'm pretty sure the complain in the OP is "Blizzard is doing more of what made them rich in the first place!"  Well, yeah, they're a business.

[The Golden Touch]

You don't need to come out with new stuff when every product you release is amazing.

I mean, I'm pretty sure the complain in the OP is "Blizzard is doing more of what made them rich in the first place!"  Well, yeah, they're a business.

+1

[oraphi]

I don't play any of the these games really but I'm a bit confused on a point.  It's fairly well known (even to a very casual gamer like me) that Blizzard has been working on a new MMO that they claim is a totaly new IP, it seems unlikely that you wouldn't of heard of it by now if I have.  They're pretty well known for being very slow  and tight lipped in development so the lack of details doesn't in the least mean it's not being made.

[meikle]

I don't play any of the these games really but I'm a bit confused on a point.  It's fairly well known (even to a very casual gamer like me) that Blizzard has been working on a new MMO that they claim is a totaly new IP, it seems unlikely that you wouldn't of heard of it by now if I have.  They're pretty well known for being very slow  and tight lipped in development so the lack of details doesn't in the least mean it's not being made.

These are true!  There've been rumors of a new MMO, at least, but Blizzard is really good at keeping things secret:  StarCraft 2 had been in development for years before anyone outside of Blizzard knew about it, and Blizzard has released all of four games in the past decade (not counting expansions!): Diablo 2, WarCraft 3, World of WarCraft, and StarCraft 2.

So, in the past ten years, Blizzard has made: two sequels that were true to their roots (Diablo II, StarCraft II), one sequel that changed things up from it's predecessor (WarCraft 3's small-group, hero-focused RTS is much different from WarCraft II before it), and one entirely new thing in a genre that they'd never worked on before (World of WarCraft).  The argument that they refuse to try new things is kind of silly with that in mind!

[Ryven]

*wouldn't mind a StarCraft MMO* >.>

[Aiden]

*wouldn't mind a StarCraft MMO* >.>

Fuck yea!


I would be a Son of Korhal or maybe from the Kel-Morian worlds!

[The Golden Touch]

Geeks.  ^ ^

[Ryven]

Fuck yea!


I would be a Son of Korhal or maybe from the Kel-Morian worlds!

Dark Templar all the way. ;D

[Inkidu]

You don't need to come out with new stuff when every product you release is amazing.

I mean, I'm pretty sure the complain in the OP is "Blizzard is doing more of what made them rich in the first place!"  Well, yeah, they're a business.

I would hardly call anything Blizzard makes "amazing" the A word I was looking for was addictive. I have never once looked at a Blizzard game and thought, "Wow, this changes the landscape of the medium."

And a new MMO besides. "Well guys! We at Blizzard don't have to make anything of redeeming value. We have the perfect recipe for an MMO. It will make money regardless." I don't see how an MMO is going to be innovative. So much of it is standardized. MMO's are the NASCAR of the video game world. I can guarantee some things on it. A it's going to follow fairly standard MMO stereotypes. B. It's going to be geared for a long slow grid to milk real money, and C. It's going to be a step or two behind anything non-MMO.

Now I'm not one of those people who says, "I just don't get MMOs." I used to be but now I see the appeal, and everything appealing with an MMO besides other humans playing is unappealing. I have played a ton of MMOs and none of them are any different than any other. Sure some are deeper, and I use that word with a feathery tongue, but mostly it's people who shell out money who'll win because no one actually dead-set on playing the game will win.

[meikle]

I see the appeal, and everything appealing with an MMO besides other humans playing is unappealing

edit: actually, i'm just going to leave out here.  your premise is self-contradictory!  you can conclude anything from that! :p

[Inkidu]

edit: actually, i'm just going to leave out here.  your premise is self-contradictory!  you can conclude anything from that! :p

Actually, no it's not. It's not explained. There are several factors to which I believe an MMO is considered appealing besides playing with other people. There is for example, questing. I just think that every other aspect of an MMO that might be found appealing is, to myself, unappealing. The quests of MMOs are usually ranked into fetch this or kill that. Some people find enjoyment in building characters with perfect stats or what have you. I find that unappealing. It's hard for me to describe what might be found appealing because I find them so bland, but I'm hardly contradicting myself.

[Brandon]

Its a well known fact that Blizzard keeps a very tight lip on the games it develops. See for yourself: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/5/23/

More seriously, its not he same company as the guys that made starcraft and diablo (the first blizzard games I played). While they still focus on taking their time to polish games to a mirror shine there just doesnt seem to be the same passion for quality and enjoyable games as their golden days.

As time progresses, and assuming their business model doesnt change, I think WoW will continue to loose subscribers (its had a hard time keeping them as is) and open up room for other MMORPGs. There were already some that came close to drawing away WoW players (warhammer and Aion for example) but due to either stupid mistakes, lack of content, or both they fell through.

[Geeklet]

I would hardly call anything Blizzard makes "amazing" the A word I was looking for was addictive. I have never once looked at a Blizzard game and thought, "Wow, this changes the landscape of the medium."

And how often do you see a game from ANY company, not just Blizzard, make you say that exact same thought. While there have been some games that offer nice new little features, I personally can probably only count on one hand games that have done something truly amazing and new.

[Neophyte]

Agreed. I can only think of a few off hand (Legend of Zelda:OoT, Pokemon, Sonic, Super Mario Brothers) that changed the way gaming works. THen again, WoW did that as well, by forcing everyone in the business to take their stance on patching and updating that it changed MMO's forever. No one can look at WoW and the MMO world and say that things haven't changed from the days of Everquest

[Brandon]

Um I hate to burst your bubble but Everquest, probably the original popular MMORPG, was doing patch fixes and updating before WoW was even in development.

Granted I have not kept up with wow since I quit right after Burning crusade so there may be elements that Im unaware of but I dont recall one original element of the game. Its much like halo in the sense that it took all those good ideas from other games and blended them together in one seemless mesh. Everything it has done has been done before and better

[meikle]

and better

what games did what wow does better than wow does it?

[Jude]

That depends on how you define WoW.  If you truly believe the product contained therein to be of a generally high quality, then I don't know if any other game can be said to be "better" than WoW.  Now, if you believe WoW is successful because it's an MMORPG that sells lowest common denominator crap to the mass-market audience by reducing tedium and depth associated with other options, then yes, I'd agree that WoW is probably the best MMORPG on the market in that capacity.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Blizzard’s business model seems to be making millions while spending little.  That is the basic dream of any company that is designed to make money, which Blizzard is a money making company.  Not quite sure where any confusion can be found in their model or success.  Large profits, minimal overhead.  Very simple business strategy.

As for new games, they just released Wings of Liberty which was one of the fastest selling titles in history.  If you are going to judge them as a business then they are probably the best gaming company out there.

[Brandon]

what games did what wow does better than wow does it?

As in what aspect? Im saying the individual aspects that make up WoWs gameplay have all been taken from somewhere else, in most cases other games that did it better. The only thing wow did was take all those ideas and combine them into a seemless mesh. If you would like me to list every aspect in WoWs gameplay and make note of how it was done better in another game then my answer is no. Thats just to much work. However if you want to picka  single aspect of the game for me to review in comparison to other games then I can do that

[meikle]

As in what aspect? Im saying the individual aspects that make up WoWs gameplay have all been taken from somewhere else, in most cases other games that did it better.

everything is just an amalgamation of things that came before.  you can't say "this thing, if you pick it apart into all its smallest pieces, does all of this tiny things worse than things before it" because what you have when you look at it like that is not the actual product.

for example: hybrid cars?  bicycles did fuel efficient travel first, and better!  horse and buggy did travel first, and tbh that doesn't cost twenty grand out of pocket, so that's a laugh at the economically superior point.  and gas cars do the point a to point b quickly thing ... more quickly.  and let's be honest: tires?  monster trucks did tires before hybrids even existed and there's no way you can beat monster truck tires.  so i mean, hybrids?  what a joke.  all these things have been done before, and better!

but hybrids do them all at once, and are the best at doing all of it at once.  the total is greater than the sum of its parts and all that.

If you truly believe the product contained therein to be of a generally high quality, then I don't know if any other game can be said to be "better" than WoW.

Now, if you believe WoW is successful because it's an MMORPG that sells lowest common denominator crap to the mass-market audience by reducing tedium and depth associated with other options, then yes, I'd agree that WoW is probably the best MMORPG on the market in that capacity.

If you think that WoW is a good game, then it is the best at what it does.
If you think that WoW is not a good game (because it is less tedious than other games?), then it is still the best at what it does.

Hum!

Also, I like the peer-down-your-nose attitude in this post.  Just because you don't like a thing doesn't make you a classier person than people who do. :p

[Chris Brady]

what games did what wow does better than wow does it?

Most other MMOs, actually.  The issue is that Blizzard has Warcraft on its side.  See, they created a brand recognizable with their humourous and quirky little inserts in the original series.  And adding pop culture references in the MMO just helps them.

But mechanically, WoW is a MESS.  It's got memory leaks in just about every major city that they never fixed, and until Cata (Which is essentially World of Warcraft 2) there's at least 7 instances/dungeons that the never finished and which they're finally doing something with with this expansion.  Also, as for Diablo 3 copying WoW, I am going to laugh REALLY HARD at ANYONE who says that.  Because WoW copied Diablo TWO.

Oh, you ask?  How so?  Well, for example, and I'm going to pick on the class that shares the most with it:  The Warrior.  You mean to tell me that Thunderclap isn't like the stomp?  Or the various Shouts that the Warrior gets?  Or even MORE obvious, Patch 3.x.x's new Fury Ability for Warriors to use a two handed weapon in EACH HAND, isn't a direct rip from the Diablo 2 Barbarian??

And let's take the Paladin.  The Auras sound pretty durned familiar, don't they.  Kinda like the Auras the D2 Paladin had right?  But nah, must be a direct rip from WoW to use in Diablo 3.  Where there ISN'T a Paladin in the game...

WoW, sadly, is a bog-standard MMO with low resolution graphics, minimal animations (Each race has the SAME special power animations, usually one for melee, and two for casters, no matter what class you choose, except for the Rogue's Mutilate) and buggy gameplay.  But because it has a Brand backing it, and one they know how to market exceedingly well, they'll keep making money.

Besides, their best teams left years ago.  Blizzard North, and the team of excellent balancers that broke off and made ArenaNet and Guildwars.

[meikle]

You say "Most other MMOs [do what WoW does but better]" and then go on a rant about Blizzard stealing ideas from itself instead of substantiating the claim.

Alright, back to backing off.  I'll come back if someone has a counterpoint to make that doesn't also have a chip on their shoulder about WoW. :p

[Inkidu]

Blizzard’s business model seems to be making millions while spending little.  That is the basic dream of any company that is designed to make money, which Blizzard is a money making company.  Not quite sure where any confusion can be found in their model or success.  Large profits, minimal overhead.  Very simple business strategy.

As for new games, they just released Wings of Liberty which was one of the fastest selling titles in history.  If you are going to judge them as a business then they are probably the best gaming company out there.

Oh, I agree it's the best, worst business model out there. Good because it makes them  money now at low overhead. Bad because it's eventually going to stagnate like you wouldn't believe. Maybe Blizzard has something good up its sleeve but if you look at Star Craft II. Can they really wait twelve years to make another game? It's good for money, bad if you want to keep yourself in the video game industry. Seriously, twelve years? That's like waiting twelve years for a new book in a series? I can't actually think of an example it's most likely rare or nonexistent. Sure a book is simpler and I'm accounting for the difference. I don't think anyone should have to wait in excess of five years for a company to produce a new title. Six at most.

[meikle]

Oh, I agree it's the best, worst business model out there. Good because it makes them  money now at low overhead. Bad because it's eventually going to stagnate like you wouldn't believe. Maybe Blizzard has something good up its sleeve but if you look at Star Craft II. Can they really wait twelve years to make another game? It's good for money, bad if you want to keep yourself in the video game industry. Seriously, twelve years? That's like waiting twelve years for a new book in a series? I can't actually think of an example it's most likely rare or nonexistent. Sure a book is simpler and I'm accounting for the difference. I don't think anyone should have to wait in excess of five years for a company to produce a new title. Six at most.

It didn't take twelve years for Blizzard to release a new title.  Diablo 2 was released two years after StarCraft.

[Inkidu]

It didn't take twelve years for Blizzard to release a new title.  Diablo 2 was released two years after StarCraft.

Diablo 2 isn't technically a new title and yes, Starcraft 2 isn't either, but it's the closest thing I could call to mind that Blizzard has produced in recent years. WOW is a spin-off. Get my drift? Blizzard actually hasn't produced an new IP in what fourteen years?

[meikle]

Diablo 2 isn't technically a new title and yes, Starcraft 2 isn't either, but it's the closest thing I could call to mind that Blizzard has produced in recent years. WOW is a spin-off. Get my drift? Blizzard actually hasn't produced an new IP in what fourteen years?

Technically, yes it is.  Technically, so is Wings of Liberty.  Sequels are still new titles.

If your point is that they haven't generated a new intellectual property in the form of a new setting, well, why is that a mark against them?  Games Workshop only uses Warhammer and Warhammer 40K (and they have: successful wargames (WHFB, WH40K, Battlefleet Gothic, Epic), successful tabletop RPGs, less-successful card games, defunct skirmish games.  Wizards of the Coast are still just making Magic: the Gathering in the card game realm (they've branched out in the past and failed).  How many Halo games are there? Halo, 2, 3, Reach, Halo Wars, ODST? Most of Stephen King's books come together in the Dark Tower universe, does that mean he's not creative?  White Wolf still only does World of Darkness and Exalted, to the point that even their spinoff IPs like video games (V:tM and V:tM Bloodlines, the upcoming World of Darkness MMO) and card games (The Eternal Struggle) fall back on World of Darkness.

But it's okay: people like World of Darkness.  It's a fun setting.  There's a lot that can be done with it.  There's no reason to reinvent the wheel if you don't have to.

Reusing intellectual property -- when it is intellectual property that people like and want more of -- is not a bad thing, and it's kind of a really arbitrary position to take.  If StarCraft 2 is what they want to make, why should that have to reskin everything if the StarCraft IP covers the desired mechanical game just fine?

[Inkidu]

Yes intellectual property would be a better word and I'm not going to argue semantics.

Yes, and no. Video games are not a stable as they used to be. They have emerged into the greater part of the main-stream media. Sure you can look at Magic, or table top games, but none of those garner the same kind of saturation that video games are getting lately. There are huge calls for new IP. More so than any other market. Books, aren't really comparable because they have longer shelf-lives, and sure you can look at the old-school gamer and say, "They still play the classics."

But the old-school is inevitably going to give away to the new, I'm a person kind of in the middle. However, many of the old-school if you look are playing the same titles. Mario Bros, but not Mario Galaxy. Video games is shifting. Hell even i.d. Software is coming out with new IP. They know Doom and Quake are losing their relevance in a modern market.

Eventually people are just going to get bored of playing "another Warcraft game."

[meikle]

Eventually people are just going to get bored of playing "another Warcraft game."

Probably, but that time isn't yet:

StarCraft II sold 1 million copies in 24 hours
WoW has 12 million players
2.8 million of those players bought the most recent expansion the day it came out.

In conclusion:

They're way ahead of you, friend.

[Inkidu]

Probably, but that time isn't yet:

StarCraft II sold 1 million copies in 24 hours
WoW has 12 million players
2.8 million of those players bought the most recent expansion the day it came out.

In conclusion:

They're way ahead of you, friend.

Didn't say it was. I just think it's soon. Probably the next seven years, give or take.

[Chris Brady]

You say "Most other MMOs [do what WoW does but better]" and then go on a rant about Blizzard stealing ideas from itself instead of substantiating the claim.

OK, fair enough.  For example, a game that's come after Lord of The Rings Online, does the same thing in terms of basic animation, but actually breaks few molds.  However, LoTRO pretty much keeps the attack skills as powers, although, each and every one has a separate animation.

For example, they have a Plate Wearer that's built as PURE DPS, not a Tank, like the WoW Warrior was originally, which was a hold over from EverQuest.  Which Blizzard had said they were going to change, but didn't until the 2.x.x patch series.  Oh, the LoTRO class is called the 'Champion'.

As does a relatively new game called Aion, with the Gladiator.  And that game feels a LOT more like WoW, but even it has a lot better graphics and a new plane for PvP combat.  Aerial.  You can FLY in that game.

If you want for something different, then let's look at Dungeon and Dragons Online, the combat is actually interactive.  You click your left mouse button to swing your weapon up to 4 separate swings (If you're a Fighter) and it was #3 on the charts for 2009 (And it's an AMERICAN Free To Play game, that does a smart thing with it's Micro Transactions.  See anything you can buy off their market, you can get in game for free, as long as you're willing to play for it.)

Thing is as for WoW, in the beginning, it pretty much hewed as close as it could to the EverQuest game model, with it's classes, much to the disappointment to some of it's fanbase.  But we kept soldiering hoping to see if Blizz would finally implement some of their changes for some of the Classes (Namely the Paladin and the Warrior) it took a while but they did.

Alright, back to backing off.  I'll come back if someone has a counterpoint to make that doesn't also have a chip on their shoulder about WoW. :p

I have nothing against WoW.  In fact, I have Cata coming (As a gift) and a friend renewed my sub before I could get my income tax return to pay for about 6 months.

I LIKE WoW, but I'm under NO illusions as to what it is, nor how it does it.

[Jude]

I hate WoW but I don't have anything against people who play it, it's simply the opposite of what I enjoy in terms of games.  I'm into hardcore games, not casual experiences, and I don't say that with some sort of secret subtext agenda of "and thus I think casual gaming is inferior" -- it's not.  WoW is successful because it's not ridiculously tedious and hardcore like damn near every other MMORPG out there.

To most that's a good thing, to a few that's bad, I just happen to be in the small minority of people who like games that force me to make heavy investments and give me the depth to design my character in a great number of customizable ways.  WoW is lacking in what I enjoy.

[Xanatos]

I don't claim to have played every MMORPG out there, but WoW and Guild Wars are pretty freaking tedious if you want to get anywhere. Admittedly since I stopped playing and before I came back briefly, WoW added in patches which made leveling easier yes. That still didn't eliminate any of the mind numbingly boring grinding however. Grinding is what makes MMO's tedious, instanting/raiding isn't tedious (generally), they are fun (although raiding can get stupid). So I'm not sure what counts as tedious if WoW is seen as "not so tedious". Half the reason I dropped WoW was because of the grinding, the other half was the people and because people treated the game like a job when one got into max level game content.

As far as I can see and have heard, most MMO's are similar if not exactly like WoW since everyone wants to emulate the 900 pound guerrilla. To not do so is to invite death or if one is lucky, success, which I haven't seen much of yet not including the free MMO's which still can't even come close to matching the 11 million+ subscribers WoW has.

I also have to beg to differ on the investment of time. WoW and Guild Wars both took up all available hours of my time when I played them; and WoW by itself is indirectly responsible for causing people to have all kinds of personal problems thanks to being addicted. Basically the term "WoWcrack" sums it up nicely. I personally logged in over 300 hours on one character alone in Guild Wars, not including the other max level 20's I have, which most of I played on a regular basis if not as much as the above mentioned character. I spent waaay to much time on those -shivers-. If I had not already been soured by the people from Guild Wars, which my dislike transferred over to WoW, I probably would have remained a player for much longer and in turn would have logged in an obscene amount of time into as well.

[Inkidu]

Probably, but that time isn't yet:

StarCraft II sold 1 million copies in 24 hours
WoW has 12 million players
2.8 million of those players bought the most recent expansion the day it came out.

In conclusion:

They're way ahead of you, friend.

What they don't tell you is the number of people who threw their PC game in the trash or don't play it. Still 1 million copies is low in 24 hours for a company with such a pedigree. Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 sold twice that I think in the same time. Plus SC 2 only sold 1.5 in 48. So that means that it only resonated with its die-hard fan base. Continuing to have their titles PC only is probably going to do them in. Even i.d. Software is branching out into the console market.

Missed my point a bit did you? I never said they were doing poorly now. I'm saying despite this new MMO (which I believe aren't so much games as excuses to prey on addictive personalities to make money) Blizzard needs new blood. So many developers are pushing the envelope and I don't think Blizzard is going to stay around much longer. Like I said MMOs are fairly standardized wherever you find them so it's hardly new, or innovative.

At the end of the day, Blizzard, like Square, loves their formula. Sure they up it graphically and in polish but it's still strict. They're show a high degree of rigidity or an inability to cope with change (in the case of Square). That invariably leads to stagnation and failure. Maybe Blizzard goes in ten years, or fifteen but to them that's just the time to develop Starcraft III. It's a lack of diversification really. 

[NCIJade]

Diversification isn't always a good thing. I'd rather a company stretch themselves over a small number of IPs and do them really, really well, than have a staggering number of IPs and every game using them be mediocre.

So many developers are pushing the envelope

Care to give some examples? And honestly? Pushing the envelope is usually what does a company in, not projects them into the stratosphere of success. There are exceptions, but pushing the envelope equates to taking a lot of risks, and in an era where the 4.7 million copies that Modern Warfare 2 sold in it's first 24 hours isn't so much rare as a one-time occurrence, there's simply no reason for studios to take those risks.

Modern Warfare wasn't the only game that sold like gangbuster's. BUT, here's the caveat: every recent game that has shattered the single-day sales records has been a sequel. Modern Warfare 2, which itself is just a modern reboot of the ancient Call of Duty franchise. Halo Reach didn't top MW2's sales, but it did top Halo 3's, and both games are just shiny new presentations of the same core gameplay.

And this isn't a bad thing. Yes, it's always really exciting to see new IP, and to see it done well, but the way consumers have steered the market, we just aren't going to see it very often anymore. We only have ourselves to blame. Why would Bungie make a new IP when they can make over $200M in a 24 hour period by adding some new gameplay elements to their standard Halo design? You can't call it greedy or selfish, or claim that they just see dollar signs. It's good business practice. Would you rather them risk it all and go under on a new IP that went bust?

As long as the games are polished and fun to play, we as consumers have no right to complain. The sales they are seeing tell them this is what we want.

[Inkidu]

Diversification isn't always a good thing. I'd rather a company stretch themselves over a small number of IPs and do them really, really well, than have a staggering number of IPs and every game using them be mediocre.

Care to give some examples? And honestly? Pushing the envelope is usually what does a company in, not projects them into the stratosphere of success. There are exceptions, but pushing the envelope equates to taking a lot of risks, and in an era where the 4.7 million copies that Modern Warfare 2 sold in it's first 24 hours isn't so much rare as a one-time occurrence, there's simply no reason for studios to take those risks.

Modern Warfare wasn't the only game that sold like gangbuster's. BUT, here's the caveat: every recent game that has shattered the single-day sales records has been a sequel. Modern Warfare 2, which itself is just a modern reboot of the ancient Call of Duty franchise. Halo Reach didn't top MW2's sales, but it did top Halo 3's, and both games are just shiny new presentations of the same core gameplay.

And this isn't a bad thing. Yes, it's always really exciting to see new IP, and to see it done well, but the way consumers have steered the market, we just aren't going to see it very often anymore. We only have ourselves to blame. Why would Bungie make a new IP when they can make over $200M in a 24 hour period by adding some new gameplay elements to their standard Halo design? You can't call it greedy or selfish, or claim that they just see dollar signs. It's good business practice. Would you rather them risk it all and go under on a new IP that went bust?

As long as the games are polished and fun to play, we as consumers have no right to complain. The sales they are seeing tell them this is what we want.

You're going way off on the MW2 tangent. That was just an example of how "A million units in a day" isn't as such a big deal. I think Fallout 3 sold a mill too. It was just an example. I agree it's not new in terms of game play. It's really hard to find something truly original but I really don't think Blizzard is bringing in new fans with its non-MMO properties.

[NCIJade]

It's not really a tangent, considering your argument seems to be that Blizzard needs new IPs or it's going to stagnate and die, and mine is that the numbers say otherwise.

[Inkidu]

It's not really a tangent, considering your argument seems to be that Blizzard needs new IPs or it's going to stagnate and die, and mine is that the numbers say otherwise.

Well, yes there current IPs are holding but they won't hold forever. Maybe my predictions are wrong but you kind of do need IPs to stay in the game but Blizzards business model is geared for maximum money minimal effort. This is good, but how many brand new Blizzard fans have you talked to? Most Blizzard people I know have been on the wagon forever.

[LIAR]

I could tell you of three new people in the past four months. Yeah, Blizzard hasn't done anything mindblowingly new lately, but so what? The point of the industry is to make games people enjoy, and that's what they're doing.

[Aiden]

Well, yes there current IPs are holding but they won't hold forever. Maybe my predictions are wrong but you kind of do need IPs to stay in the game but Blizzards business model is geared for maximum money minimal effort. This is good, but how many brand new Blizzard fans have you talked to? Most Blizzard people I know have been on the wagon forever.

Not really if you have a fan base, you do not have to cater to the minority. In this case the minority would be you Inkudu. I have introduced some of my friends and family into wow and from their we have jumped ship to other games, from there they went into Diablo, Warcraft RTS and Starcraft.

[NCIJade]

Blizzards business model is geared for maximum money minimal effort.

Uhm. I'm not sure that's fair to say. I have no experience in the industry, but I can't imagine that just because SC2, Diablo 3, and WoW are pre-existing IPs that means it takes them minimal effort to develop. I do play WoW, and I can tell you it doesn't seem like the devs ever get a moment's rest. There's ALWAYS work to be done. That doesn't sound like minimal effort to me.

This is good, but how many brand new Blizzard fans have you talked to? Most Blizzard people I know have been on the wagon forever.

No argument there, but the question is, how much does that really matter? WoW alone has 12 million + active subscriptions, I don't think they're in dire need of new fans. And, the same can be said of any developer these days (that most of their fan base has been on board for a long time). It's very rare for a new one to break out onto the market, and if they do it's not usually with a wildly innovative and totally original concept.

[meikle]

What they don't tell you is the number of people who threw their PC game in the trash or don't play it.

The twelve million are people who are giving blizzard their money every month.

I feel confident saying that the number of people who bought StarCraft 2 and promptly threw the disc away is a tiny fraction of one percent.

Still 1 million copies is low in 24 hours for a company with such a pedigree. Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 sold twice that I think in the same time. Plus SC 2 only sold 1.5 in 48. So that means that it only resonated with its die-hard fan base. Continuing to have their titles PC only is probably going to do them in. Even i.d. Software is branching out into the console market.

Yep, Call of Duty sold really well.  It also targets a different market than StarCraft 2.  First you complain that Blizzard is not being creative enough, and now you're complaining that they're making the games they want to make (PC RTS) instead of the genres that sell the best (console FPS) -- so which is it?  Is Blizzard bad because they're not creative + artistic enough, or is Blizzard bad because they're not following market trends closely enough?  You can't have it both ways.

Missed my point a bit did you? I never said they were doing poorly now. I'm saying despite this new MMO (which I believe aren't so much games as excuses to prey on addictive personalities to make money) Blizzard needs new blood. So many developers are pushing the envelope and I don't think Blizzard is going to stay around much longer. Like I said MMOs are fairly standardized wherever you find them so it's hardly new, or innovative.

"I think" is not a reliable source.  What you think about MMOs doesn't change the fact that lots of people like them -- especially WoW.  Your argument was "They need new intellectual property!"  Their new MMO is new intellectual property.  Now your argument is "MMOs aren't real games!"  Totally different (still baseless) argument.  Stop moving your goal posts.

(PS: If MMOs aren't games and are just 'an excuse to prey on addictive personalities', then your argument fails: if people are addicted, they don't care if the WarCraft IP is stagnant. :) )

This also contradicts your earlier premise (in this very post) that instead of trying to do things differently than everyone else, Blizzard should be following the Modern Warfare model of "do what sells."

At the end of the day, Blizzard, like Square, loves their formula. Sure they up it graphically and in polish but it's still strict. They're show a high degree of rigidity or an inability to cope with change (in the case of Square). That invariably leads to stagnation and failure. Maybe Blizzard goes in ten years, or fifteen but to them that's just the time to develop Starcraft III. It's a lack of diversification really.

There are like fourteen Final Fantasy games, and Square has done even more in that genre.  They work most strictly in the realm of the JRPG (but still branch out -- I don't play JRPGs as a rule, but The World Ends With You is amazing, and totally outside of Square's 'formula') -- Blizzard has two RTS franchises (one that focuses almost entirely on micro play, one that focuses on a hybrid of macro+micro), Diablo (which is essentially its own genre at this point), and WoW.

Maybe you would like to present some evidence to support your claim that Blizzard's sky is falling, instead of just saying "i think it is" ?


edit: tl;dr, "Blizzard has the most profitable video game franchise in history, therefore they are going to fail" is a ... a really sloppy argument.  And you contradict yourself all the time.

[Xenolord]

*wouldn't mind a StarCraft MMO* >.>

Win. *Waits to roll his Hydralisk.*

But more on the subject, I can see both sides of the argument. Sure, they haven't really done anything new yet. They do what every other business does, and that's what makes them money. They know their niche, and they exploit it for everything they can get.

HOWEVER, I am not so blinded by their glitz and glamor to ignore the company's inheriently flawed business practices. They refuse to listen to the people paying their paychecks, they ignore the gold spammer problem because those idiots do pay for accounts. They're too blinded by the dollar signs in their eyes to fix these problems, that I think are glaring problems, turning their gold to grime.

All in all, Blizzard walks a very fine line with me.

[meikle]

A lot of people complain that Blizzard listens too closely to their playerbase, heh.

Gold spam is a million times less of a problem than it was a few years ago.

[NCIJade]

They refuse to listen to the people paying their paychecks, they ignore the gold spammer problem because those idiots do pay for accounts. They're too blinded by the dollar signs in their eyes to fix these problems, that I think are glaring problems, turning their gold to grime.

Care to cite some examples of this? For one, agreed with meikle, the gold spam problem is a lot better than it has been in the past, and for another, they ban accounts ALL THE TIME. There's just simply no comprehensive way to do away with gold sellers that doesn't involve Blizzard themselves offering gold for money. Banning accounts does nothing. They just get a new one. Even banning individual IP addresses would probably not make a dent in the problem.

What exactly do you mean by "they refuse to listen to the people paying their paychecks"?

[meikle]

What exactly do you mean by "they refuse to listen to the people paying their paychecks"?

Presumably he's not referring to this, where Blizzard said "We're going to make it so that to post on our forums, you have to use your real name," and people went "What the fuck blizzard that is not legit!" and then they cancelled it because the people paying their paychecks were unhappy :3

[Inkidu]

Getting a little heated. I'm going to go ahead and lock this.