Blizzard Dropped Over $100 Million On StarCraft II

[T_ConX]

Yes, I suggest you read more closely "designers will be able to set their own price tags." (1UP) The designers are selling the maps, not Blizzard (though they undoubtedly get a cut). It's App Store/Steam, not Stimulus Package.

Nice that you mention the App Store, where Apple has to approve every app that goes on sale, and then takes a cut of the sales as well. That's what's gonna happen on BattleNet.

Bobby Kotick is the president of Activision-Blizzard, which is the renamed Vivendi Games (which included Blizzard) after Vivendi bought a controlling share in Activision. Blizzard retains a strong policy of autonomy from everyone I've talked to on both sides of the ATVI and Blizzard fences.

Which means of course that blaming Activision for Blizzard's screwups is mindbogglingly ignorant. Lay the blame for, say, BNet2.0 being subpar at Blizzard's feet where the blame deserves instead of just pointing at Bobby Kotick. Autonomy works both ways, y'know.

To suggest that the Director, President and Chief Executive Officer of a company doesn't exercise any control over that company is just lunacy. OK, he's most defiantly not standing over the shoulders of Blizzards staff IN PERSON, but considering [a href="http://kotaku.com/5583710/lawsuit-activision-created-modern-warfare-police-state"]his shenanigans at Infinity Ward,[/a] it's safe to make the assumption the he's been pulling some strings at Blizzard as well.

 

[John Funk]

Yes, I suggest you read more closely "designers will be able to set their own price tags." (1UP) The designers are selling the maps, not Blizzard (though they undoubtedly get a cut). It's App Store/Steam, not Stimulus Package.

Nice that you mention the App Store, where Apple has to approve every app that goes on sale, and then takes a cut of the sales as well. That's what's gonna happen on BattleNet.

Bobby Kotick is the president of Activision-Blizzard, which is the renamed Vivendi Games (which included Blizzard) after Vivendi bought a controlling share in Activision. Blizzard retains a strong policy of autonomy from everyone I've talked to on both sides of the ATVI and Blizzard fences.

Which means of course that blaming Activision for Blizzard's screwups is mindbogglingly ignorant. Lay the blame for, say, BNet2.0 being subpar at Blizzard's feet where the blame deserves instead of just pointing at Bobby Kotick. Autonomy works both ways, y'know.

To suggest that the Director, President and Chief Executive Officer of a company doesn't exercise any control over that company is just lunacy. OK, he's most defiantly not standing over the shoulders of Blizzards staff IN PERSON, but considering [a href="http://kotaku.com/5583710/lawsuit-activision-created-modern-warfare-police-state"]his shenanigans at Infinity Ward,[/a] it's safe to make the assumption the he's been pulling some strings at Blizzard as well.

Yes, but it's still the designers choosing whether to sell their apps in the first place (and for how much). If it encourages people to develop awesome maps like DotA and actually get recompense for it, then I am all for it. And of course Blizzard is going to have to approve it - do you really think they'd be so stupid as to let people make money on their platform without giving the thumbs up?

And yes, I am aware of Bobby Kotick's role. I also have spoken with many Blizzard and Activision employees who have been told that Blizzard has pretty much complete autonomy to do what it wants.

At the ActiBlizz earnings calls, Bobby Kotick and other Activision executives report on the state of every one of their studios and IPs like Tony Hawk, Guitar Hero, Infinity Ward, Treyarch, Raven, etc... except Blizzard's, which is reported by Mike Morhaime. It's also (as far as I'm aware) the only company under the Activision umbrella that self-publishes its titles. That's why you don't see an Activision logo anywhere on the SC2 box - and it's the same as it was under Vivendi, where it had pretty much complete autonomy given its highly lucrative track record.

Look, I understand some concern, but what really irritates me is how people are quick to applaud Blizzard for all of the "good" things they do, but then spin around to blame Bobby Kotick for all the "bad" things. If it's good, it's Blizzard, if it's bad it's Kotick. That's just not how it works. I firmly believe that Blizzard is one of the most talented groups in the industry today, but it isn't infallible, and to suddenly blame an unrelated party for something you don't like feels like you're just diluting the issue. They make mistakes, and they should be rightly chastised for it.

Take IWnet for Modern Warfare 2. Everyone blamed Activision for it ... but then Treyarch said that Black Ops would still use dedicated servers, so it clearly wasn't an Activision order. Bobby Kotick and Activision are far, far too busy running a multibillion-dollar international corporation to micromanage things like that.

Meh people said WC3 was great but the AI was crap leaving the game watered down............

The "Insane" StarCraft 2 AI right now is absolutely brutal. Just for the record I certainly can't beat it.

 

[JerrytheBullfrog]

Don't think that they wont try to incentivize you purchasing the other campaigns. Expect to own all 3 campaign in order to properly play in multiplayer 100%. As it stands right now, suppossedly youll only need one campaign to play multiplayer, then why would I want to purchase the other campaigns when all most people really care about is the multiplayer? Yeah, that question doesn't fit into the new Blizz mindset (where greed rules over game). No this would not sit well with the accountants.

I just checked Battle.net. There are almost as many people playing vanilla Reign of Chaos as there are playing Frozen Throne. So A.) they've already done this (require you to have expansions to play multiplayer) and B.) if you don't want to buy the expansions you'll still have hundreds of thousands of people to play with.

Is it right to include advertising and promotion as part of development costs?

I smell activision meddling again, why advertise on the side of 747s of all thing?!? Makes me think they spent money on far more frivolous advertising. Maybe I am being idealistic but surely if the game is good from such a popular franchise and proven developer... why blow so much on marketing?

Lol, the same for you. Read John Funk's last post. This indeed hilarious.
And what's so bad about advertisement? Jesus ._.

I think Bobby Kotick ordered you to type that, his influence also made you greedy.

(Ordered me to type... HUH? I was CRITICISING Kotick, why would he order me to criticise him?)
(Same for me? WHAT! Huh?)

Well I'd like to say in my defence that I DO think it is EXTREMELY important to get people to know about your product or service to be successful... but the type of advertising like plastering on the side of a 747, that is wasteful and people just phases that stuff out.

Basically I object to marketing that is blunt, frivolous and overly expensive.

I'd be FAR more impressed if they unveiled a CLEVER advertising campaign rather than a brute force tens-of-millions-of-dollars campaign. I mean 99% of the people who see a 747 with that ad on the side likely wouldn't give a damn, but what about more targeted advertising.

I HAET having to sit through ads that have ZERO APPEAL to me at all, I'm willing to accept cookies that track me and my profile as long as I don't have to sit through another 30-second tampon advert to watch TV shows online. I now that's not the MOST relevant analogy for certain game's exorbitant ad campaigns but you get my drift right?

How much do you think it cost to have a Korean Air 747 painted Starcraft? Ten thousand dollars? Fifty? That's probably a drop in the bucket. I think the development cost mainly comes from paying a huge team for six or seven years. That adds up.

Especially since I havent seen many SC2 ads anywhere. Well other than during the NBA stuff (and here on the site). It's not nearly as hpyed as MW2 was.

 

[Nathler]

Wow, recycling old games is really expensive these days...

Seriously, it bugs me to see that SC2 is so much like the original. But prettier. I'm not a fan, but does anyone find that strange that apart for some new units and tweaks and shiny new graphics, there is nothing ground breaking ? Nothing new in terms of gameplay ? There have been games wich were exactly like their ancestors, but because their presentation was excellent, it was a success (Best example : Perfect Dark and Perfect Dark Zero. Look up on Metacritic how high PDZ is rated, then go on Gametrailers : they put that game on their most disappointing games of the decade. Back then they gave it an 8 out of 10.) And now, its the same thing with SC2. I really hope for them that they will give the buyers more than that. Because 60$, on the PC, is really a joke for a game like that. Oh, and don't forget : NO LAN. The thing that made the original so appealing to teams and tournaments.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Yes, I suggest you read more closely "designers will be able to set their own price tags." (1UP) The designers are selling the maps, not Blizzard (though they undoubtedly get a cut). It's App Store/Steam, not Stimulus Package.

Nice that you mention the App Store, where Apple has to approve every app that goes on sale, and then takes a cut of the sales as well. That's what's gonna happen on BattleNet.

Bobby Kotick is the president of Activision-Blizzard, which is the renamed Vivendi Games (which included Blizzard) after Vivendi bought a controlling share in Activision. Blizzard retains a strong policy of autonomy from everyone I've talked to on both sides of the ATVI and Blizzard fences.

Which means of course that blaming Activision for Blizzard's screwups is mindbogglingly ignorant. Lay the blame for, say, BNet2.0 being subpar at Blizzard's feet where the blame deserves instead of just pointing at Bobby Kotick. Autonomy works both ways, y'know.

To suggest that the Director, President and Chief Executive Officer of a company doesn't exercise any control over that company is just lunacy. OK, he's most defiantly not standing over the shoulders of Blizzards staff IN PERSON, but considering [a href="http://kotaku.com/5583710/lawsuit-activision-created-modern-warfare-police-state"]his shenanigans at Infinity Ward,[/a] it's safe to make the assumption the he's been pulling some strings at Blizzard as well.

Yes, but it's still the designers choosing whether to sell their apps in the first place (and for how much). If it encourages people to develop awesome maps like DotA and actually get recompense for it, then I am all for it. And of course Blizzard is going to have to approve it - do you really think they'd be so stupid as to let people make money on their platform without giving the thumbs up?

And yes, I am aware of Bobby Kotick's role. I also have spoken with many Blizzard and Activision employees who have been told that Blizzard has pretty much complete autonomy to do what it wants.

At the ActiBlizz earnings calls, Bobby Kotick and other Activision executives report on the state of every one of their studios and IPs like Tony Hawk, Guitar Hero, Infinity Ward, Treyarch, Raven, etc... except Blizzard's, which is reported by Mike Morhaime. It's also (as far as I'm aware) the only company under the Activision umbrella that self-publishes its titles. That's why you don't see an Activision logo anywhere on the SC2 box - and it's the same as it was under Vivendi, where it had pretty much complete autonomy given its highly lucrative track record.

Look, I understand some concern, but what really irritates me is how people are quick to applaud Blizzard for all of the "good" things they do, but then spin around to blame Bobby Kotick for all the "bad" things. If it's good, it's Blizzard, if it's bad it's Kotick. That's just not how it works. I firmly believe that Blizzard is one of the most talented groups in the industry today, but it isn't infallible, and to suddenly blame an unrelated party for something you don't like feels like you're just diluting the issue. They make mistakes, and they should be rightly chastised for it.

Take IWnet for Modern Warfare 2. Everyone blamed Activision for it ... but then Treyarch said that Black Ops would still use dedicated servers, so it clearly wasn't an Activision order. Bobby Kotick and Activision are far, far too busy running a multibillion-dollar international corporation to micromanage things like that.

Meh people said WC3 was great but the AI was crap leaving the game watered down............

The "Insane" StarCraft 2 AI right now is absolutely brutal. Just for the record I certainly can't beat it.

Damnit stop making it hard to diss the game

 

[Biodisaster]

Why are people still talking about RealID? It's here, it's not going anywhere, and it's optional. PLEASE DRY YOUR TEARS AND GET OVER IT, and stop bringing it into threads that have nothing to do with RealID except in the vaguest sense.

As far as Starcraft II goes, its a good game imho and well worth the money, expansions or not. If you don't want to pay the money, the cool thing about consumerism is that you don't have to buy it if you don't want to.

 

[Credge]

i'm sure the nation of korea will singlehandedly make that entire amount back on day 1.


but regardless of korea, it certainly justifies that 60 dollar pricetag, i'd think.

Starcraft 2 is going to cost $60?

Cool, looks like I'm not buying it.

 

[ArmorArmadillo]

Why does it cost them so much money to carbon copy a ten year old game with shinier graphics? I mean, obviously it costs money since videogames cost money, but how could it require them to break the bank and go over-budget, this seems like a product that ought to be incredibly reliable to design.

 

[Nazulu]

Dude the only frigging issue you have is not playing all 3 races during the campaign which is so WAYNE.
Playing 3 short campaign walkthroughs as each race has no advantage man. No advantage apart from being able to say "I played as all 3 races". They else had to cut down a lot elements especially regarding the story and lore. They said so in an interview and it's common sense.
Want an example? Yes?
Blizzard implanted a global tech update system for the campaign that allows you to research tech trees that are then permanent. Now there's little to no point in doing this 3 times for only 9-10 missions per race. I mean the part is over after 10 missions anyways and the upgrades of course can't switch over to other races.
And then the story. As you know there are about 29-30 missions in SC2 each with filled with lore and story. They would've cut a lot of it.
The whole recruiting mercs, the Hyperion as a base etc. would've been way too much work if it had to be done for all 3 races in this one game.

Can you please learn to quote, it's the small blue button on the bottom left hand side on the post you want to reply to. And the what the hell is WAYNE?

In you first paragraph, you make it sound like they have to only do 10 missions for each faction and have to squeeze an entire story in it too, which is not the slightest bit true. Regardless of what anyone says, you can make a game with campaigns for each race and continue it in the expansion (see the original Starcraft and Warcraft).

Every mission will be different anyways. Why would you want to play Zerg and Toss in the campaign so hardly? It's not like multiplayer cuts it out.

So hardly? Sorry, I'm not sure what your saying here.

And Mike M. said expansions where pretty much set up from the beginning of developing SC2: Wings of Liberty. Every Blizzard game has Add-ons and they were all worth it's price. Everyone would've expected Add-ons for future titles anyways (Diablo 3 will get those too, trust me).
So now instead of making this 3*10missions, lack in lore, story and gameplay mechanics campaign they give you 3 epic ones.

Right, and I don't agree with expansions being set before the frist part is released. You see, I and many others would like to buy the game and see if I like it enough before buying the expansions. With all their previous games you could do this and play all the different campaigns, no problems and they're all great games. No problems what so ever.

Please don't tell me the game won't be worth it's money lmao. Even the cinematics and world editor alone are worth more than most full price titles out there.

Tell me what games YOU play. You must have some very, very high demands man.

Don't tell you it's not worth the money? I don't think you understand how it works for other people. I might not enjoy the game, or not enough to get the expansions at least. If I'm not enjoying the game then it's not worth money to me, and in that time of trying I'd like to play all 3 campaigns. Not everyone is getting the game to watch cinematics and fiddle with the map editor either, also with the new restrictions on BNet.2, it's definitely not worth the price. See here - http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=127066 - and here - http://www.the-ghetto.org/content/battle-net-2-0-the-antithesis-of-consumer-confidence

Assuming, you assume I have high demands? Would you like it if I assumed that your blind BlActivision sheep? No, that wouldn't be very nice. Please show me some respect and I'll do the same.

And last but not least some videos to give some visual proves.
Will edit them in.
youtube-tags don't work for newer members?
Well you get some links then.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcKvrEgSlhY
Here an in-engine cut scene.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AJz7Oiluj4&feature=related
Here the NBA advertisement showing the fully pre-rendered cinematic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP1-c5yXGnE
And here a video from Blizzcon 2008 regarding gameplay and campaign
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9JOKhoI9nY

Thank you, that was unecessary

Last but not least, I'd like to know which strategy game is on-par with this? Right, none even remotely.

Last and not least? This definitely the least. This is the best RTS to you. To me, well, first I have to play the game and then I can make up my mind.

 

[Nazulu]

As far as Starcraft II goes, its a good game imho and well worth the money, expansions or not. If you don't want to pay the money, the cool thing about consumerism is that you don't have to buy it if you don't want to.

Yes, and great thing about freedom of speech is I can complain when I believe it's wrong, and I will do just that as well as remind you that the 'worth' is a matter of opinion in this case.

I'm not going to get anything I want by ignoring it, aren't I?

 

[Nazulu]

I don't care how you defend it. A single stand alone game simply isn't worth 200 dollars. Hell the last game I pad 200 dollars for came with a fully functioning mech control panel. You can buy an entire console for that much anymore. And before you say it's three different games it's not. It's one game gimped to be sold in three parts. You honestly believe you will be able to play any semblance of multiplayer w/o all three parts? Don't kid yourself. An expansion I can deal with but this bullshit of charging 200 dollars for the completed game is simply offensive. This is a cash grab pure and simple and there is no way of justifying paying three times over for a single game.

Every single point of your entire argument is stupid, so just drop it. Nobody's making you buy that game, GoGo_Boy only pointed out that whatever you may think of SC2 (full, 1/3 of a game or whatever), it's already bigger than any single RTS game ever made. And after taking into account the endless possibilities of user content through the Galaxy Editor, it becomes obvious that if there's any RTS that's worth its price tag, it's Starcraft 2.

And about that multiplayer part - it's already better and more balanced than that of the original Starcraft, which is often touted as the best RTS game ever made. And did I mention that there were already major SC2 tournaments while it was still in the beta?

Also, take your "I don't care how you defend it" statement and shove it if you want to participate in an argument, because it just shows your ignorance and stubbornness.

I've reported you because you go against the guidelines and give no respect to others.

That said, saying "nobody's making you buy that game" is not a solution, anyones alowed to complain about something they believe is wrong.

Already bigger, better and more balanced than any other RTS ever made? For one, that isn't a good reason to over price it. There are films that are far more powerful and longer than other movies but do they sell for more? No! Which brings me to my second point, you saying it's better is a matter of opinion, not everyone will agree, you dig? And third, what the fuck does having tournaments in beta have to do with anything? Not everyone is going to participate in them, and I know for a fact that not everyone is going to make it to that level of skill.

You can take your insolence and shove it.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

I'm a little confused on the trilogy idea. Why are they making three different games instead of including everything in one like Warcraft 3 and their other RTS games?

 

[Nazulu]

I'm a little confused on the trilogy idea. Why are they making three different games instead of including everything in one like Warcraft 3 and their other RTS games?

It's not really 3 different games, they're just splitting the different race campaigns into seperate expansions in an attempt to make more money. You know, because they're corrupt.

 

[zookerman]

I'm a little confused on the trilogy idea. Why are they making three different games instead of including everything in one like Warcraft 3 and their other RTS games?

It's not really 3 different games, they're just splitting the different race campaigns into seperate expansions in an attempt to make more money. You know, because they're corrupt.

No,

Starcraft 1 had 30 missions in total.<--(w/o the expansion)
Starcraft 2:Wings of liberty will have 30 missions in total.
(you can access all sides in multiplayer)
The protoss and zerg missions are in EXPANSION PACKS and will be priced as such. The reason blizzard is releasing them later is due to time constraints.

$60 isn't that much (for this game at least) considering some of us paid $100 for the collectors set and $200 for beta keys back in february.

 

[Nazulu]

I'm a little confused on the trilogy idea. Why are they making three different games instead of including everything in one like Warcraft 3 and their other RTS games?

It's not really 3 different games, they're just splitting the different race campaigns into seperate expansions in an attempt to make more money. You know, because they're corrupt.

No,

Starcraft 1 had 30 missions in total.<--(w/o the expansion)
Starcraft 2:Wings of liberty will have 30 missions in total.
(you can access all sides in multiplayer)
The protoss and zerg missions are in EXPANSION PACKS and will be priced as such. The reason blizzard is releasing them later is due to time constraints.

$60 isn't that much (for this game at least) considering some of us paid $100 for the collectors set and $200 for beta keys back in february.

Yes, I know. Due to time constraints is a bull shit reason. They can do it in all the previous games so why this game all of a sudden? If they needed more time, they could of just extended the release date like they've already done millions of times.

I shouldn't have to pay for expansions to play the other races in campaigns, every other RTS game has had all the race campaigns in the first game. It's a perfect layout that works for everyone.

To me, it's not worth $60 with all these new bloody restrictions they'vre thrown in as well as just one race campaign. Oh that's right, I'm Australian, make that $100.

I don't like where this is going, I'd rather complain now before it gets worse.

 

[Reyalsfeihc]

Oh yes, as always, blame it on Kotick.

Kotick has no control over blizzard.

First of all, Bobby Kotick has no control over Blizzard as stated in the merger agreement.

Incoming TOLD in T-minus 3... 2... 1...

[a href="http://www.activisionblizzard.com/corp/ml/aboutUs/boardOfDirectors.html"]TOLD![/a]

Robert A. Kotick
Director; President and Chief Executive Officer of Activision Blizzard.

There you have it. Right from the mouth of the demon himself.

Or, since it seems that none of you even read the news article...

Activision-Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick has described StarCraft II as one of the company's seven "pillars of opportunity," which could each provide more than $500 million and up to even $1 billion in profit over the total product life span. With millions of copies expected to sell this year alone at $60 a pop, StarCraft II could be in the black before we celebrate 2011.

You guys make this too easy.

Second, There's been no news about "premium maps" because Blizzard has never done map packs since when you join a game you download any map you don't have automatically.

Commander! A swarm of TOLD has appeared on our RADAR! It's about to hit us!

[a href="http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3175717"]1UP: StarCraft II Will Support Premium Maps[/a]
[a href="http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/60148"]ShackNews: StarCraft 2 to Support Priced Maps, Mods[/a]
[a href="http://kotaku.com/5343006/blizzard-you-may-sell-your-starcraft-2-maps-on-battlenet-eventually"]KotakuBlizzard: You May Sell Your StarCraft 2 Maps On Battle.net, Eventually[/a]

So there you have it. How about you try just a little harder next time... ok?

How about instead you actually do what I say and read the merger agreement.

who is currently the CEO of Blizzard Entertainment and who controls all property rights as signed in the merger agreement with Vevindi.

Also, your claim for "Premium Map Packs" doesn't apply in the same way as it does for your precious Modern Warfare Activision Demon Spawn. In case you haven't been tracking Starcraft 2's development, and the capabilities of SC2's engine, you can make entirely different games and release them through battlenet via Starcraft 2. It's basically like a way of selling independent source games like Steam has done for god knows how many years now.

Case and Point.

[quote="There are a few major takeaway points from the conference call, most of which involve Blizzard. Those worried that the merger could affect Blizzard's sterling reputation for quality -- and those still unconvinced despite Blizzard's FAQ on the topic yesterday -- will be pleased to know the company will operate as its own entity. The deference paid to Blizzard's properties throughout the call -- not to mention the new comapany's name itself -- serves as a testament to the value of Blizzard in the arrangement."

(p.s. if you look on 1up.com it claims that BLIZZARD invested 100 million into SC2, not Activision. Activision doesn't own Blizzard, they're both owned by Vivendi)

 

[Reyalsfeihc]

I'm a little confused on the trilogy idea. Why are they making three different games instead of including everything in one like Warcraft 3 and their other RTS games?

It's not really 3 different games, they're just splitting the different race campaigns into seperate expansions in an attempt to make more money. You know, because they're corrupt.

Um. They had the Trilogy idea even before they merged with Vivendi. starcraft2.com has been up since 2007 so.

 

[Nazulu]

I'm a little confused on the trilogy idea. Why are they making three different games instead of including everything in one like Warcraft 3 and their other RTS games?

It's not really 3 different games, they're just splitting the different race campaigns into seperate expansions in an attempt to make more money. You know, because they're corrupt.

Um. They had the Trilogy idea even before they merged with Vivendi. starcraft2.com has been up since 2007 so.

I and many others found that out not long ago, I only just heard about SC2 coming since late 2009. It wasn't a deal breaker to me, but the new shit I heard about Battle.net might.

 

[Reyalsfeihc]

I'm a little confused on the trilogy idea. Why are they making three different games instead of including everything in one like Warcraft 3 and their other RTS games?

It's not really 3 different games, they're just splitting the different race campaigns into seperate expansions in an attempt to make more money. You know, because they're corrupt.

Um. They had the Trilogy idea even before they merged with Vivendi. starcraft2.com has been up since 2007 so.

I and many others found that out not long ago, I only just heard about SC2 coming since late 2009. It wasn't a deal breaker to me, but the new shit I heard about Battle.net might.

All of that RealID crap has been canceled if that was what you were referring to. It's going to be made an optional choice.