Poll: Is Activision Ruining Blizzard?

[TsunamiWombat]

Activision is keeping blizzard alive, you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Que? Blizzard rakes in millions a year with WoW...

Activision is funding blizzard, so yes, it is keeping blizzard alive, that is how it works.

I didn't know Blizzard NEEDED Activisions funding. Mmm, all their recent behavior makes me think that their long term game support and free to play services are putting them into the tank, which is why they're looking for new ways to raise capital. Makes sense- they havn't made big money on Warcraft 2/3 or Diablo 1/2 for years, but they maintain the online services and are putting out consistant updates.

 

[searanox]

That's what i don't get millions? No.. Billions! Yes! They make tons of money off of WoW! Why charge for Battlenet? Are they really that money hungry or are their employees really not getting payed enough that they need more?

I loved D2 for all it was worth. Loved it enough that when it was YEARS old and i wanted to play again and bought new copies because my disc were worn down. They have a strong fan base and people will pay for battlenet but do we really need to? is D3 really gonna be worth it?

The servers for World of Warcraft are very expensive, and while I'm sure they're making plenty of money from it even with those costs taken into account, it's very much a service-driven approach to gaming rather than product-driven. I don't know what the new Battle.net will feature, but it may very well be expanded to the point where a pay service is justified, maybe certain unnecessary but useful features available for those who want them (like more characters per account, custom outfits, more functional friends lists, clan support, more extensive ladders, matchmaking, etc.).

 

[Zallest]

That's what i don't get millions? No.. Billions! Yes! They make tons of money off of WoW! Why charge for Battlenet? Are they really that money hungry or are their employees really not getting payed enough that they need more?

I loved D2 for all it was worth. Loved it enough that when it was YEARS old and i wanted to play again and bought new copies because my disc were worn down. They have a strong fan base and people will pay for battlenet but do we really need to? is D3 really gonna be worth it?

The servers for World of Warcraft are very expensive, and while I'm sure they're making plenty of money from it even with those costs taken into account, it's very much a service-driven approach to gaming rather than product-driven. I don't know what the new Battle.net will feature, but it may very well be expanded to the point where a pay service is justified, maybe certain unnecessary but useful features available for those who want them (like more characters per account, custom outfits, more functional friends lists, clan support, more extensive ladders, matchmaking, etc.).

That stuff would be cool.. but it puts gamers like me in a bad position. Gamers who play things like WoW and want to play D3 but can't because it would be to much strain on my pocket book. All that new stuff in Battle.net would be cool but i think i just want the old blizzard back..

 

[TsunamiWombat]

That's what i don't get millions? No.. Billions! Yes! They make tons of money off of WoW! Why charge for Battlenet? Are they really that money hungry or are their employees really not getting payed enough that they need more?

I loved D2 for all it was worth. Loved it enough that when it was YEARS old and i wanted to play again and bought new copies because my disc were worn down. They have a strong fan base and people will pay for battlenet but do we really need to? is D3 really gonna be worth it?

The servers for World of Warcraft are very expensive, and while I'm sure they're making plenty of money from it even with those costs taken into account, it's very much a service-driven approach to gaming rather than product-driven. I don't know what the new Battle.net will feature, but it may very well be expanded to the point where a pay service is justified, maybe certain unnecessary but useful features available for those who want them (like more characters per account, custom outfits, more functional friends lists, clan support, more extensive ladders, matchmaking, etc.).

That would be ideal. Blizzard is too classy to whore itself...I should hope.

Oh and IIRC people accused Steam of being a dick-greedy move at one point as well, and lambasted it for not working like it should blah blah blah.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

I am going to come out and say it. Blizzard are whoring us for money.

 

[Lvl 64 Klutz]

Well, if you read through everything they deny any allogation that Activision is responsible.
I suppose that would end it.

... though, I don't believe it.
I am a Blizzard Fanboy though.

Well that's it right there. I find it so ironic that it's always a company's biggest fans that have the littlest faith in them.

EDIT: Blizzard IS, Activision IS, Square Enix IS, Electronic Arts freakin' IS. I've seen this in too many threads to count, so I'm finally saying something. In sentence structure, a company is a single entity.

 

[hypothetical fact]

ABSOLUTELY all world-wide companies are after nothing but money. That's just the thruth of it; this has nothing to do with activision - WoW just told blizzard that they can do whatever the heck they want because they'll get away with it

What else should any companies be after?

 

[Graustein]

ABSOLUTELY all world-wide companies are after nothing but money. That's just the thruth of it; this has nothing to do with activision - WoW just told blizzard that they can do whatever the heck they want because they'll get away with it

Exactly. They're doing this because we're letting them. We're complaining and whining, but most of us are still gonna buy their games regardless.

 

[Dommyboy]

But where will I get the fabled "monies" from to pay for Diablo 3 online? Oh god.. its over.. Just imagine the future, the horror oh the horror. People won't find Diablo 3 really worth it if you have to pay to play unless its in scale to WoW.

 

[Dommyboy]

Okay to clear up about battle.net costing, it wont. Here is a quote from the SC2 forums.

Recently, Joystiq quoted Jay Wilson out of context which lead many people (and other gaming websites) to believe Battle.net 2.0 would be subscription based. Luckly, they interviewed Rob Pardo where they brought up the issue again and he assured them that that was not the case.

Q u o t e:
So Julian Wilson told us that you guys are looking monetize Battle.Net in some way. Is that right?

Wow, that's an evil way of putting it. Julian's turning into a business guy on me. Here's the way I would put it. We're definitely not looking at turning Diablo into a subscription based game. It's clearly not an MMO, so it's not appropriate to do a business model like that. The way we approach all of our games now, is we come up with what we think is a great game, and then we wrap the appropriate business model around it. If that's just a box price, then that's that.

With Battle.Net we're definitely looking at possible different features that we might be able to do for additional money. We're not talking about Hellgate or anything like that. We're not going to tack things on. I think World of Warcraft is a great example to look at. We charge people if they want to switch servers or if they want name changes, things that aren't core to the game experience, they're really just optional things that some people want. It takes us some development work to do it, so it makes sense to charge for it. We would never do something like say to get the full game experience, you'll have to pay extra.

 

[Amnestic]

That's what i don't get millions? No.. Billions! Yes! They make tons of money off of WoW! Why charge for Battlenet? Are they really that money hungry or are their employees really not getting payed enough that they need more?

Hang on, what's this bullshit about charging for BNet? They just recently confirmed (Warcry article [http://www.warcry.com/articles/view/conferences/blizzcon_08/5358-Blizzcon-08-WoW-Diablo-3-Press-Conference]) that they wouldn't be charging. You need to be keeping up with your news laddy.

 

[DesertHawk]

@Dommyboy

While I would very much like to see a source on this, if that's true then really not much to get upset about here. You still get to play for free; but if you want some extra features, you need to hand over the dough.

It's not a bad idea really, and it falls more in line with what I expected after reading an article some time ago. (Forgive me, but I can't find the link) The article mentioned Blizzards plans to expand on battlnet. Creating more in-depth stat-tracking, and many additional features for Blizzards games. The description, overall, made it appear as some sort of 'myspace' for Blizzard gamer profiles. It wouldn't be a stretch to picture charging for these premium features, while having a free 'core' account available as well. Additionally, I would imagine WoW subscribers having access to the services by default. As for charging for name changes and the like? Sounds reasonable.

My opinions on the Starcraft II (trilogy?) deal... well, I suppose you have to be a fan to like the idea. I'm happy that they feel their story is strong enough to spread out over three games, but one faction per game? I hope they can keep gameplay fresh for a single faction of a full games worth of missions/story. Plus, its potentially a pocket killer if you want the full 'Starcraft II Experience'.

 

[Amnestic]

You know when you guys didn't believe me?

I TOLD YOU! HAHAHAHAHA!
I TOLD YOU! HAHAHAHAHA!
I TOLD YOU! HAHAHAHAHA!
I TOLD YOU! HAHAHAHAHA!
I TOLD YOU! HAHAHAHAHA!
...

Yes, what you said exactly was:

WHAT
THE
FUCK?

So, it's not enough for you to add a subscription fee, remove hostility altogether, fuck up the graphics, now you have to tamper with the mechanics?

No way I'm buying this piece of shit.

No subscription fee dumbass, I'd like to know what "remove hostility" is you're on about, graphics are your opinion, I like them and you're retarded if you didn't notice how bright and vibrant Diablo 2 was (I guess you skipped all of act 2 in the desert, ey?), and the "Tampered mechanics" were an improvement on the god-awful death mechanic in Diablo 2.

 

[Novajam]

No, I don't think Activision is ruining Blizzard. I think the merger has potential but advances for the company will probably come at a cost, just like everything else in life

With more backing and funding Blizzard can now afford to produce some new games, like Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2, and while I'm a bit sceptical of the three parts to Starcraft 2 if each episode well-made and long enough to be the same value as a "regular" game then I see no problem.

Don't cry doomsday prematurely. It mightn't be as bad as you think.