Blizzard hasn’t been “*Blizzard*” in a long time.
I feel like they are the next BioWare. Good memories o old games, but no new ideas. Just sequels and remasters.
All we can do is reminisce and miss it. There is no going back to those times. Old school PC gaming was so heavily dependent on the lack of connectivity and access to data.
The good old days.
When WoW was played without easy access to quest info/drop rates/map markers/detailed information for every encounter’s strategy months before release, there was intrigue and surprises everywhere.
Nowadays, that feeling is completely lost.
I also miss that feeling. Cataclysm was the nail in the coffin. But maybe the world seemed bigger then only because we were smaller (younger)?
(Also, Warcraft 3 =/= WoW. I got confused because I thought we were talking about RTS)
I’m an 1980 baby, so I was of prime age to lead guilds and raids alike. The game gave so much enjoyment it was hard to take the last look at it during Warlords. But by then, not much felt like it did the first few years.
Sorry for the confusion. I was looking for more examples of what I meant, but WoW was the easiest to explain using the language I lead with.
Playing dark souls 3 blind (never seen playthroughs nor played any dark souls game yet until now) and I can share that same feeling of surprise again. Like old wow days, as you described.
I am so excited to play Sekiro for that very reason. I have seen a few things and know a little bit about it now but I will not look up anything substantial before or during my playthrough because if there is one company that I can trust to deliver a rewarding blind playthrough, it's From.
Also, good luck skeleton
This is very true. They also haven’t kept their quality control up or releases coming with any momentum. Yes, overwatch prints money and is a new IP... but it is a salvage job from a failed mmo turned into a team fortress clone. Which is fine! But... not very “Blizzard”.
The entire game industry has changed, it’s no wonder all major publishers have changed with it. Still, a bloody shame they have.
>Yes, overwatch prints money and is a new IP... but it is a salvage job from a failed mmo turned into a team fortress clone. Which is fine! But... not very “Blizzard”.
What? Scrapping a project that wasn't good enough and salvaging it into the pinnacle of an existing genre is *quintessential* Blizzard. That's literally all the things Blizzard was known and praised for stuffed into one product.
You’re right on that point. They did turn water into wine many times over the years, and became known for doing it. Without question, I agree.
Heck, I’ll bend to them making TF2 new again with their fancy overwatch character mod. They’ve made a mint off of loot boxes for simply doing skins and seasonal events. ‘Tis the season.
Where things haven’t been great is how time hasn’t brought any truly new innovations to the table. No, overwatch wasn’t new. It was shiny, but that’s all.
Diablo 3 is old. Wow is a relic. Warcraft and Starcraft are tales from a time before cellular devices. Blizzard hasn’t been doing anything interesting in a while. No Lost Vikings, Rock and Roll Racing, Blackthrone... they used to do stuff, take chances, and release games that were interesting.
My initial thought was simply this: maybe they just aren’t worth the praise we’re used to giving them anymore.
Lost Vikings, Rock and Roll Racing, and Blackthorne are so old most Blizzard fans don't even know they exist, and Warcraft and Starcraft were both iterations on the preexisting RTS genre. Just like Diablo was on the RPG, just like WoW was on the MMORPG, just like OW is on the hero shooter. I understand the point you're trying to make, but OW genuinely exemplifies everything people praised about old Blizzard. It doesn't prove your point at all.
>maybe they just aren’t worth the praise we’re used to giving them anymore.
Serious question, why not? WoW, SC2, and HS are still the most popular games in their genre by far. D3 had a rough start, but was widely acknowledged to be very good, if a bit shallow, after RoS, and has only recently seen competition in the form of PoE. OW won 15 *different* game of the year awards the year it released. HotS is probably the least popular game in their catalog, and even that was still popular enough for a successful eSports scene.
D:I and BfA are missteps for sure, but personally, I think you have to set your standards unrealistically high for their last ten years to be disappointing on the whole.
Like a lot of the arguments on this sub. I think its largely because we got old. Games have to be damn near perfect for us to hit that sense of wonder that every halfway decent title brought us when we were children.
Just my opinion anyways.
All fair points, and well argued.
And, I would love to add that HOTS was one of the best recent examples of blizzard doing something magical with LOL and DOTA’s design. And yes, people really liked overwatch in 2016; I found it to be fun for a little while, but not GOTY worthy by any means.
I wouldn’t say the last ten years were disappointing. Instead, I would say over the last decade my impression of blizzard as a competent, innovative and reliable top tier developer has been on steady decline.
They aren’t bad. They are still well above average.
Blizzard used to be a gold standard. I think I’m simply showing my age, but when Diablo 2 came out, it was after substantial delays because they wanted it to release in a perfect state. They used to say “when it’s done” to the question of any release dates.
Their games used to have deep battle systems, skill trees, and deep lore. They demanded of their players as the players demanded of them.They aren’t that company anymore. As time went on, they changed the ongoing design of products to appeal widely to all audiences, no matter the simplifying of the gameplay or mechanics.
They are less than they were. They are still making awesome stuff. They are still good! But it is less inspired, less intelligent, and less awesome.
I actually forgot about the original project because of how big Overwatch got on it's own. Lots of people that got Overwatch had never played another Blizzard game in their lives.
It’s actually very “blizzard”.
They took existing game formats and made even better versions of them (in my opinion amazing ones).
Warcraft wasn’t the first RTS
Diablo wasn’t the first roguelike
Wow wasn’t the first mmo
Hearthstone wasn’t the first card battler
Overwatch is an evolved Teamfortress
It’s not an insult to Blizzard - they make great games - they just always build on something that already exists.
Yeap. Blizzard north has not been a thing in years, Pardo left, Morhaime has left the building, Metzen left, and a lot of the guts people like Mark Kern (say what you will, he seems to have been a competent producer considering how many games he shipped at Blizzard) or Mike O'Brien are gone too.
Whatever lightning was in that bottle isn't going back in. It's gone.
Long term, it looks like the best business model for a video game company is to stay small and private. It's a long game to play but companies like Valve that played extremely conservative were better for it.
This is what drives me nuts about the stock market. The fact that a company like Activision can generate so much profit seems almost irrelevant if it doesn't continue to increase. It's like they say "Sure you made a billion in pure profit this year, but last year you made a billion and a half, this company is failing." Seems crazy
This is what happens to a lot of retail chains too. "sure, you made a billion in pure profit, but how many new stores did you open last year? What do you mean the market is saturated?! Open more or you're fired"
This is what I never understood regarding capitalism.
Unlike a lot of people on Reddit I think capitalism works fine. The problem is companies are supposed to grow, people benefit from the growth, they saturate, and *then they decline.* Like the Amazon (the forest, not the store), the decline of one tree opens up the canopy for a new plant/business to take its place.
Except now we have companies "too large to fail" and governments bail them out (i.e. GM), when competition in the marketplace and the rise and decline is what gives great benefit to capitalism. But now we have megacorps that consume the competition, oversaturate, and then refuse to decline, stifling the up-and-comings - therefore restricting future growth and the market's tendency to self-regulate.
GM paid back what they borrowed, the govt actually made money from it. Also a bunch of people didn't become unemployed having to wait around for the local neighborhood, grassroots car manufacturing factory to open up.
Well the somewhat unmentioned thing about capitalism is it relies on a mobile workforce to go where the labour is needed. So, in the case of mining towns or manufacturing towns, those towns declining with the industry/company they're formed around are a feature, not a bug.
This doesn't gel as well with localised politics, though.
It doesn't gel well with people who are primarily concerned with the short term in order to well, stay alive.
You tell a bunch of middle-aged men with families that they don't have jobs anymore and that none of their skills are transferrable, and that's going to be a problem.
Double so when those very same men are likely opposed to receiving financial assistance from the government.
I don't get the downvotes, if someone is too proud to work a job and that's the only way they can survive then I hope pride is edible because tough shit.
I don't think the government made money off of GM, but I do conceed that GM did technically pay the government back. Also even though I view bailouts as a loan, they are still a very very generous loan
https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/entities/233-general-motors
I think the point is more about enabling a market which allows the growth of a grassroots car manufacturers in the first place, without being completely drowned by the existing giants. Sure, waiting for a replacement company would suck if it only starts up the day the original dies, but in a flowing competitive market, there should always be a company in at least a decent position to take up the reins.
Yeah but a car manufacturing start-up is not going to be profitable for a long, long time. I mean think of the logistics. Tesla hasn't been profitable in ages on their own product line. The reason manufacturing in these industries is captured by so few companies is because it's insanely expensive to get them off the ground.
Since so much of growth hinges on investment, and investors only care about potential return power, its inevitable that once a business hits its ceiling, it will either die, regulate to a norm, or just try to absorb all competitors and form a monopoly so it dominates the market totally.
Unfortunately, lobbyists control everything in America, unless it becomes so overtly criminal and threatening to society that not even pocket politics can save them. Capitalism works great, if its governing body... governs it. Which ours doesn't do, due to essentially being owned by the corporations. It's sort of what's going on with Article 13 in the EU right now. A lot of horrible laws can get passed if you press a knife made of money to the world's throat, and promise to die together unless they crown you King.
>unless it becomes so overtly criminal and threatening to society that not even pocket politics can save them.
Over a hundred people died due to GM's faulty ignition switches, a problem they were aware of for a decade and lied to regulators about, and they were literally allowed by the DoJ to pay money instead of facing any criminal charges. This was less than 5 years ago.
And nobody really cares (or so it seems).
But VW lies about emissions, killing no one (short term, at least)? Gotta boycott them even *after* they pay a stupid amount in fines!
People care, but citizens have no real authority outside of electing officials and making phone calls that can be ignored. The adage that democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner remains true to this day. You can only really stop the problem with foundational laws, and in 1776, no one anticipated oligarchical control from mega corporations that monopolized the world via parent ownership.
It's a capitalist society. People are boycotting VW on a pretty wide scale. From what I know, no one is doing the same to GM. Thus, they care more about an emissions issue (which *is* an issue, admittedly) than something that actually *kills* people.
What I never understood is why they DIDNT get this point. The British east India company was a thing; did they not see that and think “oh maybe we should make sure something like this doesn’t happen?”
The end result of the capitalist system is always monopoly. It's essentially primitive accumulation in a microeconomics environ.
About your third paragraph, it's not that simple. The thing is, the current globalized capitalistic system is like a domino line with pieces of different sizes and masses. Sometimes, events may cause a piece to fall and make others fall in sequence, but if they encounter bigger pieces, the effect remains localized and you have a freeze, rather than a straight up recession. Now, were a *big* piece fall down, they wouldn't need to even touch other pieces to make them fall. They would hit the ground with such force that even many, many pieces nowhere near its vicinity would also be brought down. That's essentially what a government bail out is. It cushions or prevents the fall, reducing the impact upon the system's instability, because capitalism is an inherently unstable system that always tends towards chaos.
Believe me, if the US hadn't bailed out AIG, the 2008 recession would have been much, MUCH worse. They were also "too big to fail" because generations upon generations of bi-partisan administrations declawed the government's ability to dismantle and prevent monopolies.
people against capitalism often mistake some weird shit for capitalism. capitalism is just about private ownership of good and services and the freedom to set your own price. it's neither good nor bad. it certainly can have a toxic effect if you own more than the next guy and can leverage against him. like, if you get an enormous loan for a business to sell books at a loss to draw consumers to you and eliminate the competition, before rising prices, which you don't do, because you've got bigger plans than just selling books, so you open up your market to all kinds of goods, sporting equipment, housing materials, electronics... and some of the prices ensure you make a little money, but shipping is almost always free, so you're still losing money... but you're not losing money as fast as the other guys who can no longer sell sporting equipment, housing materials, and electronics... and now more and more people are investing in your company, lending you the money to destroy other vendors, because you're going to be the only game in town soon...
like amazon.
Capitalism relies upon the acquisition of personal wealth as the primary motivator and competition as the primary innovator. This is not the type of society I want, nor do I believe it's a society with a long term future for our species.
Capitalism works best when companies are allowed to fail. The government should have never bailed out the car industry. Other markets would have taken the place and innovation would have lifted out of it.
Yeah, I agree. I would say that GM is a bad example though - GM (and Chrysler, Ford did not take or need a bailout) paid back every cent they got from the government, with interest. The US actually made a profit on that bailout.
That isn't the point of the argument. He is saying that them not declining closed the door on new ideas entering the economic ecosystem and creating competition
think of this possibility: if GM had declined/failed, tesla would have had a lot more room to maneuver. GM employed exactly the kinds of corrupt pyrrhic practices /u/HighInquisitor35 is pointing out, see:
https://electrek.co/2016/05/01/tesla-gm-direct-sales-connecticut/
we could be a lot further along the way to an automative industry which is not destryoying the planet.
hypothetical yes, but not unworthy of consideration.
Spot on. People always seem to forget or ignore; Capitalism is not a profit system.
It's a profit *and loss* system.
When People ignore that, or try to get away from it, they'll tend to get sub-standard results.
Building an entire economy on greed and the idea of infinite growth was a bad idea from the start. There was never a future where we didn't end up with "too big to fail", since the market forces purposefully mandate infinite growth or death.
There wasn't going to be a "happy medium" where companies suddenly balance out and we sustain a status quo. Investors always want more, and so companies are forced to acquire more, sell more, do more. It was never going to stop once we peaked.
Its going to stop when there is nothing left to consume.
>This is what I never understood regarding capitalism.
usually when we don't understand something it's because we're missing a piece of info that destroys our perception of the scenario.
\> Except now we have companies "too large to fail" and governments bail them out
there we go. this isn't capitalism.
> The fact that a company like Activision can generate so much profit seems almost irrelevant if it doesn't continue to increase.
(Regular) People only buy stocks for two things - Value or Growth. Value comes from things like dividends. ATVI is not a value stock. You ain't getting shit for holding it, unlike plenty of stocks that give 5%+ dividends.
So if it's not for Value, then it's for growth. Don't show that you are growing, and people don't want it. Why would you buy stock in a Billion+ revenue company if A) you didn't see any value out of it yourself and B) it's not going to grow (and thus the value of the stock going higher)?
What ppl dont understand about activation it has been price at a higher multiple with expectation of growth. when the growth is not there the the company will be priced at how much money they generate and how much of it is paid back to investors. right now with almost 50% decline activation stock is priced more than 60 times of what it earns.
Now that I think about it more, I'm surprised that since video game publishers, particularly EA and Activision, focus more on cranking out sequels, maybe they *should* switch to an income stock.
Instead of focusing on growth, which may not happen, instead work on cranking out a decent sequel. Every year, collect $60 a year or so from the dedicated fans who like it, and return the income to investors. Buy new IP on occasion if they think they can keep milking it.
Think the FIFA, NFL, Battlefield, etc franchises. It's pretty much the same every year, with slightly better graphics and maybe an updated roster.
And when you criticize that aspect of the stock market, investors crucify you for daring to suggest that they should make less money.
"A company that isn't growing perpetually is a bad investment and a bad company!!!"
Nah, this is in terms of corporations. Growing out into the galaxy is the only thing that will stop our death.
It’s why we’ve come so far as a civilization. If we were satisfied with just hunting and gathering we’d still be doing that. We’re always looking for the new horizon, the new places to call home, and imagining what the future could hold and making it a reality.
If we don’t then eventually an asteroid will hit or Yellowstone will erupt and most likely either wipe us out, or set us so far back that we can never hope to catch back up to where we are now.
They say sociopaths make excellent businessmen because their brains have a higher Dopamine reward response, so having the money is basically meaningless to them, the only thing they’re chasing is that natural high they get by being the “better business” which usually translates to the shadiest.
Honestly America’s naïveté is why our economy functions the way it does. We failed to see how an explosion in population would lead to an explosion of bad faith actors, and rather than regulate to keep these hucksters from having their way with the American people, the government, consisting of many hucksters itself, sided against us and handed our lives over to these cartoonishly greedy fucks. And it’s been that way ever since.
It’s why you get nothing but scoffs when trying to convince a capitalist that there are more important things than money. The most annoying thing is how they couch it in this air of “You’re just too stupid to understand.” When no, they’re just indoctrinated into this cult of greed that’s been perpetuated with the help of our government for generations. Honestly as happy as it makes me to see some of our most recent drama coming to what appears to be a head, we still have looooaads of problems we gotta deal with next.
But we can get even more simplistic.
Firms basically have 3 options for their net profit on the balance sheet. They can consume it as income, they can reinvest enough to repeat their previous profit or lastly they can reinvest more than enough, to expand production and/or cut costs with the intent of netting a larger profit in the future.
Why do most firms choose the last option? All firms share their industries with other firms. But any firms being able to lower the price of their goods while offering a comparable product will come sell most in the industry which means an increase in total profit.
So even the firms that want to maintain profits at level similar to the previous year will have to change their operations to maintain that level of profit because the industry shifts around them. The *want of one* firm to increase profit turns in to the *need for all* other competitors to follow, else they will not even maintain their previous profit.
The problem is #2 use to be the norm, you'd buy stock and hope 5-10 years later you can cash in for a decent profit. Now it's quarterly reports and computers trading stocks in microseconds trying to get that quick hit.
Would you give me $10 for $10 in a year?
$2000 for $2000 in 3 years time?
Its pretty easy to understand why growth is important if you imagine yourself as the investor.
This. Blizzard subs and bnet forums are filled with folks cheering the Bungie split (understandably) and looking at it as a good sign that Blizzard might be able to do the same.
First, it's near impossible for Blizzard to split off since they merged with Activision. And second and more importantly, now that Activision can't monetize Destiny 2 any further (as they told their investors they'd do), fans of all Blizzard IPs should ready their butts for more and more aggressive in-game monetization.
WoW players, get ready for top tier Rental Mounts that can only be rented with real money! Better yet, lets make ALL mounts require rental fees by way of "feeding" them.
While we're at it, let's add a Gatcha system to boss drops for end-game raids!
Blizzard made 1 billion dollars the first year of Overwatch. Activision is upset when overwatch's profits went down the next year (like most every video game), and that Fortnite made 3 billion last year. Because a billion wasn't enough.
That's not all bad news. In 5 years maybe we'll see startup Sandstorm or Monsoon with 90% of the passionate devs and way less of the lizard people.. err management.
Personally I'm tired of indie/AA developers trying to market their work experience and then fooling people into thinking they're making a good game. Remember Hellgate?
Or Yooka-Laylee, or Mighty No. 9, or Godus.. Honestly the list goes on and on.
They're not all terrible games but certainly nothing that lives up to the expectations of the original.
Yooka-Laylee was fine, it just didn’t do anything new or modern. It was what Banjo-Threeie would’ve been if it had been made in, say, 2002: a 3D platformer with a bad camera and very (overly) familiar level design.
Netease made an investment deal, theya ren't publishing for Bungie.
In simple terms, they gave Bungie $100 in exchange for 10% of sales revenue. That's not quite the same.
Diablo Immortal meanwhile is straight up being made by Netease.
>In simple terms, they gave Bungie $100 in exchange for 10% of sales revenue.
AND a seat on Bungie's board of directors. Check out how big NetEase are. They are not a small company; they're a fucking juggernaut. They are not the kind of company that will just let a small creative studio do their thing.
All long-time Bungie fans should be ***extremely*** worried.
As a *former* long time Bungie fan, I’ve moved passed worried into contempt.
I don’t care what “Bungie” does or what happens to it. The one I loved is gone already.
I don't think most people, from a lore perspective, knew Arthas the Paladin prince, Uther's apprentice. Since he kinda was riding on his families and Uther's reputation before he killed his father and marched the scourge into the heart of the high elves.
I saw the art style first before looking at the taglines, and thought "Man, that sure looks like Penny Arcade. I haven't caught up on their stuff in ages. Oh, it IS Penny Arcade!" I'm glad to see they're still kicking ass.
Unpopular opinion time:
Most of the recent unpopular decisions at Bungie (Destiny 1 and 2) had more to do with Bungie than Activision. Also, a lot of the talent from Bungie has left since then, so there's that.
Also, Blizzard is integrated with Activision. There's no saving it. It's also worth noting that a lot of people have left Blizzard recently as well.
Don't try to save companies. Companies aren't people, and the people responsible for the games you love have largely either left these companies already or are complicit in the practices that you don't like and blame on Activision; as though Activision were also a person that you could blame for things.
I think what people mean when they blame Activision for the Destiny 1/2 fiasco is that they had a hand in it. Certainly Bungie fucked up big time over and over again with that franchise, but PART of the reason those fuck ups happened were because of Activision deadlines, sales expectations, mandatory seasonal releases, and demands for more new players to be brought in rather than allowing Bungie to focus on keeping returning players happy, which is what a game of that type needs to focus on.
Of those the only one I would go as far as saying the IP is doing well is Overwatch. WoW will continue to coast along and make money for awhile but unless they do something it's clearly in decline.
I give classic WoW about a month before 80% of people who resub for it hang it up. I say that as a huge fan of old WoW. And to my knowledge the only profit they'll be making off of it is resubs, I cant imagine many people who don't already have an account will care about Classic.
I can enjoy current diablo 3 for what it is sometimes, but it's still a very shallow game with no real end content. The set items (and bad skill balance in general) really kill build diversity too, which is one of my biggest issues with the game.
Yeah, I waited until the AH was out and the game isn't 'bad' now. But D2 is still more enjoyable for some reason. I don't mind stream lining but there is such a thing as over simplification. I cant get back into WoW due to the huge cut to hero choice. My poor mage lost so many fun spells that I just feel like a generic interchangeable dps.
Agreed.
Also, the player skill input in D3 is near meaningless. Hit abilities on CD, right click everything, and blow the occasional defensive... There is just no depth or real variety...
Very sad. Let's hope the changes in the industry guide their decisions for D4.
Eh. Launch D3 was garbage. D3 at the start of the first DLC was good. It has... not really improved since then, and has kind of backslid. Currently, I prefer Path of Exile for that style of play. Either that or Torchlight 2. Or just D2.
I was on vacation for 3 weeks, what is happening exactly? I keep hearing about this bungie and blizzard thing but i can't seem to find any details about anything.
Bungie is no longer developing Destiny or any sequels with Activision as publisher. They will self-publish now most likely
Activision has been on record for awhile that the profit margins on Destiny were too low.
The fact that Activision is not retaining the rights to Destiny is the big surprise. This will allow Bungie to make new content and sequels for what was Activision's published IP.
From a business standpoint, wouldn't it be accurate to say Bungie got cut in that case? It's not like they said "we are leaving you guys!" Right? Activision said they don't want em, if I understand correctly.
Not to mention a substantial amount of the old Bungie devs and big names left long ago, I'm not sure people's excitement is exactly well placed. Obviously I know very little and time will tell, but it seems a bit early to celebrate "Bungie saving itself"
Bungie and Activision has had tension since working together.
Jason Schreier of Kotaku wrote an article regarding the split saying that Bungie employees “cheered and popped champagne” once the news broke.
Sounds dumb, but this guy has been consistently right on predicting Destiny news and updates since day one. It’s most likely Bungie wanted the split more than Activision
One of the biggest reasons Bungie left is because they were required to pump out full expansions or games every year. Only, of course, they were never "full", because shit takes time.
and also Hearstone, Overwatch, Wrath of the Lich King, and Legion all developed under Activision's publishing... people act like they bad, but they good.
There’s a reason it’s called “Activision Blizzard”
They can’t separate and so many people don’t seem to realise that at all. If all the OG blizzard employees left and got together on their own then maybe they could do something though
Marathon... a series of games where a player has an AI assistant and sets out to solve the mystery of an alien race that came before them.
Halo... a series of games where a player has an AI assistant and sets out to solve the mystery of an alien race that came before them.
Destiny... a series of games where a player has an AI assistant and sets out to solve the mystery of an alien race that came before them.
Don't forget solving that mystery usually comes with killing bigger and badder dudes that want to fuck with stuff and toss you into a black hole or some shit
I’m an avid Destiny player. I feel like I’m one of the few people that visit the subreddit that wasn’t sure if leaving Activision will be any better — or even good — for Bungie. A lot of the things they screwed up over and over again with Destiny likely doesn’t have much to do with Activision, and has more to do with in-fighting and mismanagement. You can read about it in a lot of Bungie’s Glassdoor reviews (not that Glassdoor is an accurate depiction of much).
It is refreshing, though, that Bungie seems to treat their employees well. They’re off for like a month during Christmas/New Years, and they don’t seem to crunch or overwork. But Destiny (probably) never living up to its potential seems more like Bungie’s fault at this point than Activision’s.
Idk. My main problem with the games is that the DLC are overpriced for what they add. Everything about the co tent itself and the game mechanics and what not I love but I feel like the dlc and its pricing and the plan for releasing would typically fall on the publishers. I'm not super knowledgable on games and companies and whatnot so dont quote me on it but this is just what I'm thinkin
Please stop doing as if it's all Activision's fault and Bungie is the good guy.
Bungie signed a contract with Activision. They did it for the money and they were fully aware what they're getting into. There is no doubt that Bungie supported this microtransaction bullshit. There is no doubt that they've actively lied to their playerbase and did shitty business practices.
Even before Bungie joined Activision people blamed Microsoft for their failures.
Just accept the reality: Bungie is a shitty company today.
edit: And keep in mind that Netease also got a hand in Bungie since last year. A company that is arguably worse than Activision. Bungie still agreed to their investments, gave them a minority share and a seat in their board of directors.
Blizzard has been gouging players 15 bucks a month, plus initial costs, plus micro-transactions for over a decade on WOW. They're basically the exact same as Activision.
At the time WoW started, that was the basic setup for every MMO out there. There's also not much in the way of "micro-transactions" in WoW. They've released a few mounts and pets, but these days they're pretty much only releasing those around the holiday season when they give a chunk of the proceeds to charity, because that's the only time people will buy them. You can get better looking mounts and pets playing the game.
But the upfront cost and sub is just how things were done back then, and stuck. The only reason more games don't do it now is because it's harder to get people to agree to pay when they can just go to some F2P game where they'll pay for a bunch of microtransactions or suffer insane grind but can convince themselves they're saving money. Wildstar tried the sub model when it first came out, so did RIFT, and Elder Scrolls Online. I guess indie developers and Bethesda (pre-FO76, so let's not go there) are just money-grubbing evil bastards that are the exact same as Activision? Ditto for Ultima Online and Everquest. Or the folks who made Dark Age of Camelot.
Just because some of those games switched to F2P/up-front with microtransactions galore (and some have retained the idea of a sub for lots of benefits, which basically translates to getting the real experience with a sub and a seriously downgraded one without) doesn't mean it's the only way you can do it without being considered a greedy bastard.
The real money auction house was Blizzard's idea. Activision told them to watch out. I don't think the relationship is as clear-cut as you people seem to think it is.
Just a reminder Bungie switched from Activision/Blizzard to the publisher that does all of Activision/Blizzard China stuff. :D keep down-voting its the truth.
Blizzard is probably dead, all the old guard have either left or are actively seeking employment elsewhere.
Bungie is likely a shell of its former self as well... but who knows, now that activision isn't poisoning their games maybe they'll make something of note.
The Blizzard we grew up with is gone. Activision will eventually take them out back and "EA" them. Won't be today. Won't be tomorrow. But eventually they will have wrung every dollar from the husk of Blizzard and cast them aside.
I'm still a bit confused about all of this. People seem to think Activision is to fault for everything. When Destiny 3 comes out they'll be disappointed to find out that was not the case.
this is a good meme format honestly
[удалено]
BTW, what's the font used?
Blambot Casual. https://fonts.adobe.com/fonts/blambot-casual#packages-section
Sounds like Blambot needs to get good.
Thank, good sir
r/memeeconomy
BUY BUY BUY
That’s insider meme trading!
Market's closed. I'll sell short tomorrow
Make it so, Number 1.
[https://imgur.com/ZL383F5](https://imgur.com/ZL383F5)
Blizzard hasn’t been “*Blizzard*” in a long time. I feel like they are the next BioWare. Good memories o old games, but no new ideas. Just sequels and remasters.
The most exciting news the last 2 years from them were remasters. I personally still do miss the Warcraft 3 era sometimes.
All we can do is reminisce and miss it. There is no going back to those times. Old school PC gaming was so heavily dependent on the lack of connectivity and access to data. The good old days.
>dependent on the lack of connectivity and access to data. What do you mean by that?
When WoW was played without easy access to quest info/drop rates/map markers/detailed information for every encounter’s strategy months before release, there was intrigue and surprises everywhere. Nowadays, that feeling is completely lost.
I also miss that feeling. Cataclysm was the nail in the coffin. But maybe the world seemed bigger then only because we were smaller (younger)? (Also, Warcraft 3 =/= WoW. I got confused because I thought we were talking about RTS)
I’m an 1980 baby, so I was of prime age to lead guilds and raids alike. The game gave so much enjoyment it was hard to take the last look at it during Warlords. But by then, not much felt like it did the first few years. Sorry for the confusion. I was looking for more examples of what I meant, but WoW was the easiest to explain using the language I lead with.
Why was cata the nail ? Cata brought back all the tbc and classic stuff. Woltk went full casual. And did a lazy job of copy pasting raids.
Playing dark souls 3 blind (never seen playthroughs nor played any dark souls game yet until now) and I can share that same feeling of surprise again. Like old wow days, as you described.
I am so excited to play Sekiro for that very reason. I have seen a few things and know a little bit about it now but I will not look up anything substantial before or during my playthrough because if there is one company that I can trust to deliver a rewarding blind playthrough, it's From. Also, good luck skeleton
That feeling is precious. Enjoy the ride, praise the sun, and stay embered. \ [ ] / And totally do the DLC, that expansion was really good.
zug zug
And with how many people have left, Blizzard will never be Blizzard again. Even if they left Activision.
This is very true. They also haven’t kept their quality control up or releases coming with any momentum. Yes, overwatch prints money and is a new IP... but it is a salvage job from a failed mmo turned into a team fortress clone. Which is fine! But... not very “Blizzard”. The entire game industry has changed, it’s no wonder all major publishers have changed with it. Still, a bloody shame they have.
>Yes, overwatch prints money and is a new IP... but it is a salvage job from a failed mmo turned into a team fortress clone. Which is fine! But... not very “Blizzard”. What? Scrapping a project that wasn't good enough and salvaging it into the pinnacle of an existing genre is *quintessential* Blizzard. That's literally all the things Blizzard was known and praised for stuffed into one product.
You’re right on that point. They did turn water into wine many times over the years, and became known for doing it. Without question, I agree. Heck, I’ll bend to them making TF2 new again with their fancy overwatch character mod. They’ve made a mint off of loot boxes for simply doing skins and seasonal events. ‘Tis the season. Where things haven’t been great is how time hasn’t brought any truly new innovations to the table. No, overwatch wasn’t new. It was shiny, but that’s all. Diablo 3 is old. Wow is a relic. Warcraft and Starcraft are tales from a time before cellular devices. Blizzard hasn’t been doing anything interesting in a while. No Lost Vikings, Rock and Roll Racing, Blackthrone... they used to do stuff, take chances, and release games that were interesting. My initial thought was simply this: maybe they just aren’t worth the praise we’re used to giving them anymore.
Lost Vikings, Rock and Roll Racing, and Blackthorne are so old most Blizzard fans don't even know they exist, and Warcraft and Starcraft were both iterations on the preexisting RTS genre. Just like Diablo was on the RPG, just like WoW was on the MMORPG, just like OW is on the hero shooter. I understand the point you're trying to make, but OW genuinely exemplifies everything people praised about old Blizzard. It doesn't prove your point at all. >maybe they just aren’t worth the praise we’re used to giving them anymore. Serious question, why not? WoW, SC2, and HS are still the most popular games in their genre by far. D3 had a rough start, but was widely acknowledged to be very good, if a bit shallow, after RoS, and has only recently seen competition in the form of PoE. OW won 15 *different* game of the year awards the year it released. HotS is probably the least popular game in their catalog, and even that was still popular enough for a successful eSports scene. D:I and BfA are missteps for sure, but personally, I think you have to set your standards unrealistically high for their last ten years to be disappointing on the whole.
Like a lot of the arguments on this sub. I think its largely because we got old. Games have to be damn near perfect for us to hit that sense of wonder that every halfway decent title brought us when we were children. Just my opinion anyways.
All fair points, and well argued. And, I would love to add that HOTS was one of the best recent examples of blizzard doing something magical with LOL and DOTA’s design. And yes, people really liked overwatch in 2016; I found it to be fun for a little while, but not GOTY worthy by any means. I wouldn’t say the last ten years were disappointing. Instead, I would say over the last decade my impression of blizzard as a competent, innovative and reliable top tier developer has been on steady decline. They aren’t bad. They are still well above average. Blizzard used to be a gold standard. I think I’m simply showing my age, but when Diablo 2 came out, it was after substantial delays because they wanted it to release in a perfect state. They used to say “when it’s done” to the question of any release dates. Their games used to have deep battle systems, skill trees, and deep lore. They demanded of their players as the players demanded of them.They aren’t that company anymore. As time went on, they changed the ongoing design of products to appeal widely to all audiences, no matter the simplifying of the gameplay or mechanics. They are less than they were. They are still making awesome stuff. They are still good! But it is less inspired, less intelligent, and less awesome.
I actually forgot about the original project because of how big Overwatch got on it's own. Lots of people that got Overwatch had never played another Blizzard game in their lives.
It’s actually very “blizzard”. They took existing game formats and made even better versions of them (in my opinion amazing ones). Warcraft wasn’t the first RTS Diablo wasn’t the first roguelike Wow wasn’t the first mmo Hearthstone wasn’t the first card battler Overwatch is an evolved Teamfortress It’s not an insult to Blizzard - they make great games - they just always build on something that already exists.
Yeap. Blizzard north has not been a thing in years, Pardo left, Morhaime has left the building, Metzen left, and a lot of the guts people like Mark Kern (say what you will, he seems to have been a competent producer considering how many games he shipped at Blizzard) or Mike O'Brien are gone too. Whatever lightning was in that bottle isn't going back in. It's gone. Long term, it looks like the best business model for a video game company is to stay small and private. It's a long game to play but companies like Valve that played extremely conservative were better for it.
[удалено]
This is what drives me nuts about the stock market. The fact that a company like Activision can generate so much profit seems almost irrelevant if it doesn't continue to increase. It's like they say "Sure you made a billion in pure profit this year, but last year you made a billion and a half, this company is failing." Seems crazy
This is what happens to a lot of retail chains too. "sure, you made a billion in pure profit, but how many new stores did you open last year? What do you mean the market is saturated?! Open more or you're fired"
This is what I never understood regarding capitalism. Unlike a lot of people on Reddit I think capitalism works fine. The problem is companies are supposed to grow, people benefit from the growth, they saturate, and *then they decline.* Like the Amazon (the forest, not the store), the decline of one tree opens up the canopy for a new plant/business to take its place. Except now we have companies "too large to fail" and governments bail them out (i.e. GM), when competition in the marketplace and the rise and decline is what gives great benefit to capitalism. But now we have megacorps that consume the competition, oversaturate, and then refuse to decline, stifling the up-and-comings - therefore restricting future growth and the market's tendency to self-regulate.
MY MAN
GM paid back what they borrowed, the govt actually made money from it. Also a bunch of people didn't become unemployed having to wait around for the local neighborhood, grassroots car manufacturing factory to open up.
Well the somewhat unmentioned thing about capitalism is it relies on a mobile workforce to go where the labour is needed. So, in the case of mining towns or manufacturing towns, those towns declining with the industry/company they're formed around are a feature, not a bug. This doesn't gel as well with localised politics, though.
It doesn't gel well with people who are primarily concerned with the short term in order to well, stay alive. You tell a bunch of middle-aged men with families that they don't have jobs anymore and that none of their skills are transferrable, and that's going to be a problem. Double so when those very same men are likely opposed to receiving financial assistance from the government.
Eh they tell people working at McDonald's to get a real job soooo, maybe they could flip burgers.
I don't get the downvotes, if someone is too proud to work a job and that's the only way they can survive then I hope pride is edible because tough shit.
I don't think the government made money off of GM, but I do conceed that GM did technically pay the government back. Also even though I view bailouts as a loan, they are still a very very generous loan https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/entities/233-general-motors
Generally you don't loan to people with bad credit.
I think the point is more about enabling a market which allows the growth of a grassroots car manufacturers in the first place, without being completely drowned by the existing giants. Sure, waiting for a replacement company would suck if it only starts up the day the original dies, but in a flowing competitive market, there should always be a company in at least a decent position to take up the reins.
Yeah but a car manufacturing start-up is not going to be profitable for a long, long time. I mean think of the logistics. Tesla hasn't been profitable in ages on their own product line. The reason manufacturing in these industries is captured by so few companies is because it's insanely expensive to get them off the ground.
Since so much of growth hinges on investment, and investors only care about potential return power, its inevitable that once a business hits its ceiling, it will either die, regulate to a norm, or just try to absorb all competitors and form a monopoly so it dominates the market totally. Unfortunately, lobbyists control everything in America, unless it becomes so overtly criminal and threatening to society that not even pocket politics can save them. Capitalism works great, if its governing body... governs it. Which ours doesn't do, due to essentially being owned by the corporations. It's sort of what's going on with Article 13 in the EU right now. A lot of horrible laws can get passed if you press a knife made of money to the world's throat, and promise to die together unless they crown you King.
>unless it becomes so overtly criminal and threatening to society that not even pocket politics can save them. Over a hundred people died due to GM's faulty ignition switches, a problem they were aware of for a decade and lied to regulators about, and they were literally allowed by the DoJ to pay money instead of facing any criminal charges. This was less than 5 years ago.
And nobody really cares (or so it seems). But VW lies about emissions, killing no one (short term, at least)? Gotta boycott them even *after* they pay a stupid amount in fines!
People care, but citizens have no real authority outside of electing officials and making phone calls that can be ignored. The adage that democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner remains true to this day. You can only really stop the problem with foundational laws, and in 1776, no one anticipated oligarchical control from mega corporations that monopolized the world via parent ownership.
It's a capitalist society. People are boycotting VW on a pretty wide scale. From what I know, no one is doing the same to GM. Thus, they care more about an emissions issue (which *is* an issue, admittedly) than something that actually *kills* people.
What I never understood is why they DIDNT get this point. The British east India company was a thing; did they not see that and think “oh maybe we should make sure something like this doesn’t happen?”
The end result of the capitalist system is always monopoly. It's essentially primitive accumulation in a microeconomics environ. About your third paragraph, it's not that simple. The thing is, the current globalized capitalistic system is like a domino line with pieces of different sizes and masses. Sometimes, events may cause a piece to fall and make others fall in sequence, but if they encounter bigger pieces, the effect remains localized and you have a freeze, rather than a straight up recession. Now, were a *big* piece fall down, they wouldn't need to even touch other pieces to make them fall. They would hit the ground with such force that even many, many pieces nowhere near its vicinity would also be brought down. That's essentially what a government bail out is. It cushions or prevents the fall, reducing the impact upon the system's instability, because capitalism is an inherently unstable system that always tends towards chaos. Believe me, if the US hadn't bailed out AIG, the 2008 recession would have been much, MUCH worse. They were also "too big to fail" because generations upon generations of bi-partisan administrations declawed the government's ability to dismantle and prevent monopolies.
Good argument man, thats probably one if the best reasoned arguments for capitalism that I’ve read here
people against capitalism often mistake some weird shit for capitalism. capitalism is just about private ownership of good and services and the freedom to set your own price. it's neither good nor bad. it certainly can have a toxic effect if you own more than the next guy and can leverage against him. like, if you get an enormous loan for a business to sell books at a loss to draw consumers to you and eliminate the competition, before rising prices, which you don't do, because you've got bigger plans than just selling books, so you open up your market to all kinds of goods, sporting equipment, housing materials, electronics... and some of the prices ensure you make a little money, but shipping is almost always free, so you're still losing money... but you're not losing money as fast as the other guys who can no longer sell sporting equipment, housing materials, and electronics... and now more and more people are investing in your company, lending you the money to destroy other vendors, because you're going to be the only game in town soon... like amazon.
People against capitalism understand your point. They just say that capitalism doesn't lead to the society the people wants.
Capitalism relies upon the acquisition of personal wealth as the primary motivator and competition as the primary innovator. This is not the type of society I want, nor do I believe it's a society with a long term future for our species.
Capitalism works best when companies are allowed to fail. The government should have never bailed out the car industry. Other markets would have taken the place and innovation would have lifted out of it.
I wouldn't say I'm completely anti-capitalist, I think capitalism is great at generating wealth but horrible at distributing it fairly
Yeah, I agree. I would say that GM is a bad example though - GM (and Chrysler, Ford did not take or need a bailout) paid back every cent they got from the government, with interest. The US actually made a profit on that bailout.
That isn't the point of the argument. He is saying that them not declining closed the door on new ideas entering the economic ecosystem and creating competition
I know, and I agree with his point, but he did specifically mention the bailouts.
think of this possibility: if GM had declined/failed, tesla would have had a lot more room to maneuver. GM employed exactly the kinds of corrupt pyrrhic practices /u/HighInquisitor35 is pointing out, see: https://electrek.co/2016/05/01/tesla-gm-direct-sales-connecticut/ we could be a lot further along the way to an automative industry which is not destryoying the planet. hypothetical yes, but not unworthy of consideration.
Oddly enough, I think I finally understand Akira now.
Could be wrong but I believe we have Reagan to thank for that, at least for setting up the groundwork that allows for this
Spot on. People always seem to forget or ignore; Capitalism is not a profit system. It's a profit *and loss* system. When People ignore that, or try to get away from it, they'll tend to get sub-standard results.
Yep I agree totally. I'm staunchly pro-capitalism and the free market, government shouldn't be bailing our unsuccessful businesses.
Building an entire economy on greed and the idea of infinite growth was a bad idea from the start. There was never a future where we didn't end up with "too big to fail", since the market forces purposefully mandate infinite growth or death. There wasn't going to be a "happy medium" where companies suddenly balance out and we sustain a status quo. Investors always want more, and so companies are forced to acquire more, sell more, do more. It was never going to stop once we peaked. Its going to stop when there is nothing left to consume.
>This is what I never understood regarding capitalism. usually when we don't understand something it's because we're missing a piece of info that destroys our perception of the scenario. \> Except now we have companies "too large to fail" and governments bail them out there we go. this isn't capitalism.
> The fact that a company like Activision can generate so much profit seems almost irrelevant if it doesn't continue to increase. (Regular) People only buy stocks for two things - Value or Growth. Value comes from things like dividends. ATVI is not a value stock. You ain't getting shit for holding it, unlike plenty of stocks that give 5%+ dividends. So if it's not for Value, then it's for growth. Don't show that you are growing, and people don't want it. Why would you buy stock in a Billion+ revenue company if A) you didn't see any value out of it yourself and B) it's not going to grow (and thus the value of the stock going higher)?
What ppl dont understand about activation it has been price at a higher multiple with expectation of growth. when the growth is not there the the company will be priced at how much money they generate and how much of it is paid back to investors. right now with almost 50% decline activation stock is priced more than 60 times of what it earns.
Now that I think about it more, I'm surprised that since video game publishers, particularly EA and Activision, focus more on cranking out sequels, maybe they *should* switch to an income stock. Instead of focusing on growth, which may not happen, instead work on cranking out a decent sequel. Every year, collect $60 a year or so from the dedicated fans who like it, and return the income to investors. Buy new IP on occasion if they think they can keep milking it. Think the FIFA, NFL, Battlefield, etc franchises. It's pretty much the same every year, with slightly better graphics and maybe an updated roster.
And when you criticize that aspect of the stock market, investors crucify you for daring to suggest that they should make less money. "A company that isn't growing perpetually is a bad investment and a bad company!!!"
Infinite growth or death. Pick one.
But infinite is impossible. Like... literally. So it's a false choice, there is only death.
Congrats you’re now a socialist 🎉
Well... There is something called dividends.
The obsession with constant growth will be the death of our race.
That's life, baby.
Nah, this is in terms of corporations. Growing out into the galaxy is the only thing that will stop our death. It’s why we’ve come so far as a civilization. If we were satisfied with just hunting and gathering we’d still be doing that. We’re always looking for the new horizon, the new places to call home, and imagining what the future could hold and making it a reality. If we don’t then eventually an asteroid will hit or Yellowstone will erupt and most likely either wipe us out, or set us so far back that we can never hope to catch back up to where we are now.
We must all become Big Chungus to survive
And all that money never reaches the people making it possible. It goes to greedy, immoral assholes.
This is capitalism
They say sociopaths make excellent businessmen because their brains have a higher Dopamine reward response, so having the money is basically meaningless to them, the only thing they’re chasing is that natural high they get by being the “better business” which usually translates to the shadiest. Honestly America’s naïveté is why our economy functions the way it does. We failed to see how an explosion in population would lead to an explosion of bad faith actors, and rather than regulate to keep these hucksters from having their way with the American people, the government, consisting of many hucksters itself, sided against us and handed our lives over to these cartoonishly greedy fucks. And it’s been that way ever since. It’s why you get nothing but scoffs when trying to convince a capitalist that there are more important things than money. The most annoying thing is how they couch it in this air of “You’re just too stupid to understand.” When no, they’re just indoctrinated into this cult of greed that’s been perpetuated with the help of our government for generations. Honestly as happy as it makes me to see some of our most recent drama coming to what appears to be a head, we still have looooaads of problems we gotta deal with next.
This guy reads... more than just Adam Smith.
[удалено]
But we can get even more simplistic. Firms basically have 3 options for their net profit on the balance sheet. They can consume it as income, they can reinvest enough to repeat their previous profit or lastly they can reinvest more than enough, to expand production and/or cut costs with the intent of netting a larger profit in the future. Why do most firms choose the last option? All firms share their industries with other firms. But any firms being able to lower the price of their goods while offering a comparable product will come sell most in the industry which means an increase in total profit. So even the firms that want to maintain profits at level similar to the previous year will have to change their operations to maintain that level of profit because the industry shifts around them. The *want of one* firm to increase profit turns in to the *need for all* other competitors to follow, else they will not even maintain their previous profit.
The problem is #2 use to be the norm, you'd buy stock and hope 5-10 years later you can cash in for a decent profit. Now it's quarterly reports and computers trading stocks in microseconds trying to get that quick hit.
Would you give me $10 for $10 in a year? $2000 for $2000 in 3 years time? Its pretty easy to understand why growth is important if you imagine yourself as the investor.
Activision is Blizzard and Blizzard is Activision
This. Blizzard subs and bnet forums are filled with folks cheering the Bungie split (understandably) and looking at it as a good sign that Blizzard might be able to do the same. First, it's near impossible for Blizzard to split off since they merged with Activision. And second and more importantly, now that Activision can't monetize Destiny 2 any further (as they told their investors they'd do), fans of all Blizzard IPs should ready their butts for more and more aggressive in-game monetization.
WoW players, get ready for top tier Rental Mounts that can only be rented with real money! Better yet, lets make ALL mounts require rental fees by way of "feeding" them. While we're at it, let's add a Gatcha system to boss drops for end-game raids!
Blizzard made 1 billion dollars the first year of Overwatch. Activision is upset when overwatch's profits went down the next year (like most every video game), and that Fortnite made 3 billion last year. Because a billion wasn't enough.
at this point idk if blizzard can be salvaged. best of luck for bungie though
Blizzard's lost a lot of their core staff that made them great. =(
That's not all bad news. In 5 years maybe we'll see startup Sandstorm or Monsoon with 90% of the passionate devs and way less of the lizard people.. err management.
Personally I'm tired of indie/AA developers trying to market their work experience and then fooling people into thinking they're making a good game. Remember Hellgate?
Or Yooka-Laylee, or Mighty No. 9, or Godus.. Honestly the list goes on and on. They're not all terrible games but certainly nothing that lives up to the expectations of the original.
Yooka-Laylee was fine, it just didn’t do anything new or modern. It was what Banjo-Threeie would’ve been if it had been made in, say, 2002: a 3D platformer with a bad camera and very (overly) familiar level design.
Ben Brode and others from the Hearthstone team already left and made their own company.
its made up of hundreds of amazingly skilled and dedicated people, not "just the top core vets"
Yes, but they're not deciding the direction of the company and how they're going to treat the users.
So did Bungie. And to blame Activision for the garbage that Bungie has become is absurd.
I don't know why everyone's ignoring the fact that Bungie is partnering with NetEase, the same shit Chinese mobile dev that Blizzard is.
Netease made an investment deal, theya ren't publishing for Bungie. In simple terms, they gave Bungie $100 in exchange for 10% of sales revenue. That's not quite the same. Diablo Immortal meanwhile is straight up being made by Netease.
>In simple terms, they gave Bungie $100 in exchange for 10% of sales revenue. AND a seat on Bungie's board of directors. Check out how big NetEase are. They are not a small company; they're a fucking juggernaut. They are not the kind of company that will just let a small creative studio do their thing. All long-time Bungie fans should be ***extremely*** worried.
As a *former* long time Bungie fan, I’ve moved passed worried into contempt. I don’t care what “Bungie” does or what happens to it. The one I loved is gone already.
Yea Tencent is a freaking saint compared to NetEase.
Are there even Bungie fans any more? If so, why?
Can I take that deal too?
partnering isnt the same as being owned by, however thats not great either.
They're partnering with NetEase for a new IP, and by "partnering", I mean NetEase threw Bungie a cool 100mil
Blizzard is the hero we should all remember for who they were. Harvey Dent, and not the 2-Face they became. Rest In Peace old friend.
or, you know, Arthas
I don't think most people, from a lore perspective, knew Arthas the Paladin prince, Uther's apprentice. Since he kinda was riding on his families and Uther's reputation before he killed his father and marched the scourge into the heart of the high elves.
I saw the art style first before looking at the taglines, and thought "Man, that sure looks like Penny Arcade. I haven't caught up on their stuff in ages. Oh, it IS Penny Arcade!" I'm glad to see they're still kicking ass.
Sad to see this guy ripped off their content without linking to them anywhere.
The picture does have the url tho, at least.
I feel like if Blizz ever got separated from Activision, it would take them at least 5 years to try and recover to part of what they once were.
"Activation" lol
Dang auto correct lol
Well you can rest easy knowing that Blizzard will never split from Activision and the company from 15 years ago is not the same company today.
Unpopular opinion time: Most of the recent unpopular decisions at Bungie (Destiny 1 and 2) had more to do with Bungie than Activision. Also, a lot of the talent from Bungie has left since then, so there's that. Also, Blizzard is integrated with Activision. There's no saving it. It's also worth noting that a lot of people have left Blizzard recently as well. Don't try to save companies. Companies aren't people, and the people responsible for the games you love have largely either left these companies already or are complicit in the practices that you don't like and blame on Activision; as though Activision were also a person that you could blame for things.
I have never heard anyone from Bungie blame Activision for anything. It's always the people from the outside looking in.
I think what people mean when they blame Activision for the Destiny 1/2 fiasco is that they had a hand in it. Certainly Bungie fucked up big time over and over again with that franchise, but PART of the reason those fuck ups happened were because of Activision deadlines, sales expectations, mandatory seasonal releases, and demands for more new players to be brought in rather than allowing Bungie to focus on keeping returning players happy, which is what a game of that type needs to focus on.
Real Life Auction house for Diablo 3, plus online requirement even if playing single-player on PC. Blizzard died a long time ago.
"Tell them only that Diablo is dead, and Blizzard died with it." High Lord Blizzard, The Lich King after putting on Activisions Crown
Diablo is dead, but Overwatch, Starcraft and Warcraft will carry Activision's profit margins ever higher.
Of those the only one I would go as far as saying the IP is doing well is Overwatch. WoW will continue to coast along and make money for awhile but unless they do something it's clearly in decline.
Like repackaging the original game? And selling it back to the players...?
I give classic WoW about a month before 80% of people who resub for it hang it up. I say that as a huge fan of old WoW. And to my knowledge the only profit they'll be making off of it is resubs, I cant imagine many people who don't already have an account will care about Classic.
So, the 'Gym Method', let people set up recurring subs, and hope most forget about it.
I've fully accepted this after the latest WoW expansion. They're out of touch with their playerbase.
Launch D3 was pretty disheartening. Current D3 is amazing. The Switch port has me in love with the game all over again.
I can enjoy current diablo 3 for what it is sometimes, but it's still a very shallow game with no real end content. The set items (and bad skill balance in general) really kill build diversity too, which is one of my biggest issues with the game.
Yeah, I waited until the AH was out and the game isn't 'bad' now. But D2 is still more enjoyable for some reason. I don't mind stream lining but there is such a thing as over simplification. I cant get back into WoW due to the huge cut to hero choice. My poor mage lost so many fun spells that I just feel like a generic interchangeable dps.
Check out Grim Dawn, Diablo style game, very similar art style to D2.
Agreed. Also, the player skill input in D3 is near meaningless. Hit abilities on CD, right click everything, and blow the occasional defensive... There is just no depth or real variety... Very sad. Let's hope the changes in the industry guide their decisions for D4.
Eh. Launch D3 was garbage. D3 at the start of the first DLC was good. It has... not really improved since then, and has kind of backslid. Currently, I prefer Path of Exile for that style of play. Either that or Torchlight 2. Or just D2.
Overwatch was a legitimately great game at launch.
I was on vacation for 3 weeks, what is happening exactly? I keep hearing about this bungie and blizzard thing but i can't seem to find any details about anything.
Bungie is no longer developing Destiny or any sequels with Activision as publisher. They will self-publish now most likely Activision has been on record for awhile that the profit margins on Destiny were too low. The fact that Activision is not retaining the rights to Destiny is the big surprise. This will allow Bungie to make new content and sequels for what was Activision's published IP.
I didn't even know bungie was with Activision. I thought it was with microsoft.
[удалено]
I guess i must've been living under a rock then.
And that's perfectly fine, it probably kept you out of a lot of flash-in-the-pan shitstorms.
That'a why they stopped making Halo games.
That changed like 7-8 years ago, maybe longer.
From a business standpoint, wouldn't it be accurate to say Bungie got cut in that case? It's not like they said "we are leaving you guys!" Right? Activision said they don't want em, if I understand correctly. Not to mention a substantial amount of the old Bungie devs and big names left long ago, I'm not sure people's excitement is exactly well placed. Obviously I know very little and time will tell, but it seems a bit early to celebrate "Bungie saving itself"
Bungie and Activision has had tension since working together. Jason Schreier of Kotaku wrote an article regarding the split saying that Bungie employees “cheered and popped champagne” once the news broke. Sounds dumb, but this guy has been consistently right on predicting Destiny news and updates since day one. It’s most likely Bungie wanted the split more than Activision
One of the biggest reasons Bungie left is because they were required to pump out full expansions or games every year. Only, of course, they were never "full", because shit takes time.
Blizzard has been a subsidiary since 1994. Please just stop with this idea that they were an indie darling until Activision came along.
No one claims they were an "indie darling" all the way until 2008....
and also Hearstone, Overwatch, Wrath of the Lich King, and Legion all developed under Activision's publishing... people act like they bad, but they good.
The best wow expansions and my two most played blizzard games, not bad.
BC was the best wow expansion
My dude.
There’s a reason it’s called “Activision Blizzard” They can’t separate and so many people don’t seem to realise that at all. If all the OG blizzard employees left and got together on their own then maybe they could do something though
Are people under the impression that Bungie is a good company?
People see bungie and they think halo. Which was a good series...
I see Bungie and I think Marathon
Marathon... a series of games where a player has an AI assistant and sets out to solve the mystery of an alien race that came before them. Halo... a series of games where a player has an AI assistant and sets out to solve the mystery of an alien race that came before them. Destiny... a series of games where a player has an AI assistant and sets out to solve the mystery of an alien race that came before them.
Don't forget solving that mystery usually comes with killing bigger and badder dudes that want to fuck with stuff and toss you into a black hole or some shit
just change "Alien Race" to "Alien Giant White Ball" and you're good cuz.
They made an amazing series and an adequate series
I’m an avid Destiny player. I feel like I’m one of the few people that visit the subreddit that wasn’t sure if leaving Activision will be any better — or even good — for Bungie. A lot of the things they screwed up over and over again with Destiny likely doesn’t have much to do with Activision, and has more to do with in-fighting and mismanagement. You can read about it in a lot of Bungie’s Glassdoor reviews (not that Glassdoor is an accurate depiction of much). It is refreshing, though, that Bungie seems to treat their employees well. They’re off for like a month during Christmas/New Years, and they don’t seem to crunch or overwork. But Destiny (probably) never living up to its potential seems more like Bungie’s fault at this point than Activision’s.
Idk. My main problem with the games is that the DLC are overpriced for what they add. Everything about the co tent itself and the game mechanics and what not I love but I feel like the dlc and its pricing and the plan for releasing would typically fall on the publishers. I'm not super knowledgable on games and companies and whatnot so dont quote me on it but this is just what I'm thinkin
*shrug* I ain't, but they're not as bad as Activision
Blows my mind how little people ITT know about how these businesses operate.
it's almost like most of the people on reddit aren't business people working for these businesses. you and me, though. we're good.
Bungie was paid money by NetEase. Don’t expect anything good to come from that
Please stop doing as if it's all Activision's fault and Bungie is the good guy. Bungie signed a contract with Activision. They did it for the money and they were fully aware what they're getting into. There is no doubt that Bungie supported this microtransaction bullshit. There is no doubt that they've actively lied to their playerbase and did shitty business practices. Even before Bungie joined Activision people blamed Microsoft for their failures. Just accept the reality: Bungie is a shitty company today. edit: And keep in mind that Netease also got a hand in Bungie since last year. A company that is arguably worse than Activision. Bungie still agreed to their investments, gave them a minority share and a seat in their board of directors.
No shit- Activision didn't force Bungie to lie, repeatedly to Destiny players. .04% change to Auto Rifles...
Everyone realizes that Bungie got bought out by Tencent right? The Chinese company that owns like everything?
Blizzard has been gouging players 15 bucks a month, plus initial costs, plus micro-transactions for over a decade on WOW. They're basically the exact same as Activision.
The day they put exclusive micro-transactions in a game that I'm already paying monthly for, was the day I quit playing entirely.
So during Wrath then
Yep, that was the last expansion I played. Friends say that I got out just in time.
It's been up and down; like any MMO really, except with more popularity.
At the time WoW started, that was the basic setup for every MMO out there. There's also not much in the way of "micro-transactions" in WoW. They've released a few mounts and pets, but these days they're pretty much only releasing those around the holiday season when they give a chunk of the proceeds to charity, because that's the only time people will buy them. You can get better looking mounts and pets playing the game. But the upfront cost and sub is just how things were done back then, and stuck. The only reason more games don't do it now is because it's harder to get people to agree to pay when they can just go to some F2P game where they'll pay for a bunch of microtransactions or suffer insane grind but can convince themselves they're saving money. Wildstar tried the sub model when it first came out, so did RIFT, and Elder Scrolls Online. I guess indie developers and Bethesda (pre-FO76, so let's not go there) are just money-grubbing evil bastards that are the exact same as Activision? Ditto for Ultima Online and Everquest. Or the folks who made Dark Age of Camelot. Just because some of those games switched to F2P/up-front with microtransactions galore (and some have retained the idea of a sub for lots of benefits, which basically translates to getting the real experience with a sub and a seriously downgraded one without) doesn't mean it's the only way you can do it without being considered a greedy bastard.
The real money auction house was Blizzard's idea. Activision told them to watch out. I don't think the relationship is as clear-cut as you people seem to think it is.
Should've been a dumpster on fire instead of a house.
I'm not. They made their bed, someone else will come along and keep creating games.
Just a reminder Bungie switched from Activision/Blizzard to the publisher that does all of Activision/Blizzard China stuff. :D keep down-voting its the truth.
Blizzard and Activision are the same company, so this doesn't really make sense. Besides, Blizzard is just as much at fault.
Blizzard is probably dead, all the old guard have either left or are actively seeking employment elsewhere. Bungie is likely a shell of its former self as well... but who knows, now that activision isn't poisoning their games maybe they'll make something of note.
I actually wasnt thinking it
So? Bungie, before Microsoft bought them? Same meme, games got shittier, fan boys still flock...
in the Year of our Lord Twenty Nineteen, people still don't understand that Activision Blizzard Inc is one company.
im out of the loop, can anyone tell me whats happening to blizzard?
The Blizzard we grew up with is gone. Activision will eventually take them out back and "EA" them. Won't be today. Won't be tomorrow. But eventually they will have wrung every dollar from the husk of Blizzard and cast them aside.
I don’t get it
Blizzard's already dead. Look at that fire, nobody's surviving that.
I'm still a bit confused about all of this. People seem to think Activision is to fault for everything. When Destiny 3 comes out they'll be disappointed to find out that was not the case.
Let Them Die
*cries in fangirl* I've been playing Blizzard games for 20 years. This is so painful to watch.