A terrible, terrible thought occurs to me

[Tek7]

Fixed.

Sorry. I'm only willing to spend hundreds of dollars on a console when I'm able to trust that it won't go belly-up on me inside the first 6 months. Even if the 360 hardware failure rate has decreased, I haven't seen any hard numbers on the improvements, nor any evidence that suggests even the newest hardware revisions have a lower failure rate than the PS3.

My best friend (Elihu) has a 360 and I'll admit it has some cool games on it, but Elihu has a mutant ability to bend the laws of probability in his favor. I, on the other hand, have a mutant ability to bend the laws of probability against my favor. If one in 25 Xbox 360s throw a RROD or E74, there's an absurdly good chance it's going to be mine.

Not only that, but most of the 360 exclusives hold no appeal for me while some of the PS3 exclusives do.

And if I want to play a first-person shooter, I'm going to play it with a mouse and keyboard on a computer (read: I don't like playing FPS games with thumbsticks).

 

[Tek7]

And you act like the old battle.net was great, and it most definitely wasn't. Even at the time it came out I realized it wasn't nearly as great as the game; and now with all the new features battle.net 2.0 has I think it will be far superior than its predecessor.

It's true. Battle.net used to be horrible. There's a good reason why the Christian Gamers Alliance used to run a private Battle.net server--because it used to be the only way to get more than 3 people into a game and play it from start to finish.

Lastly, as cool as LAN is, and as sad as I am to see it go, I really don't see how it makes a difference in the long run. LAN is not nearly as popular now as it was 10 years ago (if it was ever really popular then). I could definitely see living without it.

LAN parties are still alive. They just come around as often as they used to.

 

[Neirai the Forgiven]

LAN parties are still alive. They just come around as often as they used to.

But right now, I challenge you! what is important about LAN parties? I've had just as much fun at WoW LAN parties as I had at CS LAN parties.

Now, if the Battle.net is vastly inferior to what you could get with a set of CAT6 cables, then it's a problem. But what I've seen of Blizzard lately assures me it will not be.

I also have to add, RyanB, I think you're being overly cynical in a speculative sense... StarCraft II isn't out yet, WoW (and specifically WotLK, a post-Activision product) is going great guns and gaining ground while focusing on customers, so I think that it might be way too early to call them evil.

 

[RyanB]

But right now, I challenge you! what is important about LAN parties? I've had just as much fun at WoW LAN parties as I had at CS LAN parties.

Starcraft was pretty big online and in the US, but in places like Korea it's a national sport. Tournament play pretty much requires LAN speeds. Personally, I don't care about LAN; I don't even play SC.

As for my claims on Activision...I know that they sound "extreme", but sadly they are true. Bobby Kotick has been very up front about squeezing franchises (they ONLY take on games with sequel potential), rewarding only profit, and plans of making battle.net "similar to Xbox Live".

Few examples:
* Why is SC2 3 campaigns? Profit. Why sell you one game when we can sell you 3.
* Why no LAN? Profit. They are monetizing battle.net, so you are forced to play there. Remember LAN = local, too.
* Why did they remove dedicated servers for MW2 and disallow mods? Profit. Free mods from the community compete with the paid maps they'll be putting out.

Bottom line is, the goal is no longer to make the best game so that people will want to play it, it's to nickle and dime customers for as much as humanly possible. Really, it's about looking at people's motivations.

My prediction: There won't be a monthly fee for SC2 or Diablo 3. There won't be a monthly fee for CoD (unless they announce the rumored MMO). There will be an annual fee for battle.net 2. If that annual fee is $50, then Starcraft is now $100 up front, $150 if you play more than a year, and another $100 for episodes 2 and 3. No LAN means that your game is useless without battle.net, so even if you play for a month and would like to play again later, you'll need another subscription.

I also have to add, RyanB, I think you're being overly cynical in a speculative sense... StarCraft II isn't out yet, WoW (and specifically WotLK, a post-Activision product) is going great guns and gaining ground while focusing on customers, so I think that it might be way too early to call them evil.

Wow costs $15/month per user, coming in at around $100 million per month total. The average player spends hundreds of dollars over the course of their time there, and sticks around like a drug addict needing a fix. I'm not trying to start an argument about whether WoW is evil or not; I'm simply saying that I wouldn't say Activision is running the most profitable game in history because they care about gamers.

 

[Neirai the Forgiven]

I haven't heard any plans for monetizing Battle.net 2. Largely, this is the first I've heard of it.

Personally, I'd not be surprised if Blizzard simply went for the 15/month subscription basis for all of their games, one subscription fitting one game or all of their games depending on how much Blizzard you play being up to you.

Games would be handled on a per-content-chunk basis. So of course you need to shell out for SC2.1-3, Diablo III, but then you get in-game content upgrades and superior Blizzard customer care.

So far, I've seen minimal* changes to WoW since Activision came out.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just a quick off-the-cuff statement: It's always awkward to me when I call someone out in CGA. For the record, while I'm challenging RyanB in this thread, I quite enjoy his presence in CGA and think he's a great guy.

*Changes I've noticed since Actiblizzard started up:
1. Models for items seem to get copied more. This could be because a) Activision cut a lot of the modeling department staff, b) HD models, which they are using, take a lot more time to make, or c) The modeling team is going hard-core for Cataclysm and 'that new MMO.'
2. Activision created a team focusing on the social and UI aspect of WoW. This team is responsible for a huge number of upgrades to the UI of WoW, including more mailboxes, in-game quest support, the cool new Dungeon finder, and little upgrades like clam-stacking and increasing the size of leather or potion stacks. It's basically a "what do players want" team.
In addition, this team is dedicated to overhauling a lot of the old WoW systems that have been around since forever, such as the new guild system opening up in Cataclysm.
3. Advertisements. Whether you hate or love Mr.T in WoW, that's Activision.
4. There does seem to be a bit more of a push towards deadlines than before, but Blizzard is still pretty lax about deadlining. And that's a good thing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I should mention that I do realize that I have a huge amount of Blizzard loyalty, so I might be blind to the facts But I don't give my game loyalty easily. I've seen my share of great companies turn into greedy bloatware factories.

I don't see that happening with Blizzard, but I could be dead wrong.

 

[RyanB]

Don't worry, I don't take offense to being challenged...that's what discussion threads are for. If I was making baseless claims, someone should definitely call me out. If not, it only makes the position stronger. Anyway... I guess I'll try to source most of this. I'm just pulling random links off of Google, but I will say that I've been following this closely for years.

Anyway...

Now, I should mention that I do realize that I have a huge amount of Blizzard loyalty, so I might be blind to the facts But I don't give my game loyalty easily. I've seen my share of great companies turn into greedy bloatware factories.

I don't see that happening with Blizzard, but I could be dead wrong.

It breaks my heart, but that happened the day Blizzard was sold. Activision is not just Blizzard's publisher; they own Blizzard. Obviously there are a lot of the same folks working there, but as far as company decisions go, Blizzard does not exist anymore. I guess that's the first thing we should clear up. Activision's CEO (Bobby Kotick) has been the extremely outspoken over the last few years about milking customers, almost to the point of bragging.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=24732
* Starcraft was delayed for Battle.net 2. You should be playing SC2 now, but you aren't. You're waiting for Battle.net 2.
* Will add social networking features

http://kokugamer.com/2009/09/15/activison-proud-of-how-it-gouges-customers-over-pricing/

“Today, we’ll sell you for $100 a guitar. You might add a microphone or drums, you might buy two or three expansions packs, different types of music. Over the life of your ownership you’ll probably buy around 25 additional song packs in digital downloads. So, what used to be a $50 sale is a $500 sale today.”

http://hothardware.com/News/Activision-Blizzard-CEO-Bobby-Kotick-Talks-Gaming-Hates-Happy-People/

According to the CEO, studio heads now regularly argue with CFO's over the allocation of funds, each competing with the others for cash. If this doesn't sound like much fun—and it doesn't—that's Bobby's stated plan. "We have a real culture of thrift," Kotick said. "The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games."

The CEO's long-term vision, in his own words, is to instill the corporate culture with "skepticism, pessimism, and fear...We are very good at keeping people focused on the deep depression." You'd think the man might've learned his lesson when indivuals and press organizations decried his plan to strictly focus on games that "have the potential to be exploited every year on every platform with clear sequel potential and have the potential to become $100 million dollar franchises."

http://www.vg247.com/2009/08/05/new-battlenet-will-be-comparable-to-xbox-live-says-kotick/

“To put Battle.net into context, it will be a service similar to Xbox Live, and it will leverage the technologies, infrastructure and expertise that Blizzard has developed over the last decade in multiplayer play and social networking,” said the exec, speaking in the firm’s Q2 earnings call.

http://media.moddb.com/cache/images/groups/1/2/1612/thumb_620x2000/2i6p8ja.jpg.png
Call of Duty 4 vs Modern Warfare 2 online features comparison.

Need I mention the Guitar Hero shovelware?
---------------------------------------------------------------

I am not sure when another subscription-based game will come out from ActiBlizzard, since anything you do that with competes with WoW. If they do have another franchise, it will likely be something with little overlap like CoD.

So far, there has been no "proof" of a yearly fee for Battle.net 2, and folks are certainly welcome to come to their own conclusions. The fact is - Activision is making the calls for Blizzard projects, not Blizzard. Maybe (and I'm betting) that means a fee for battle.net 2, or maybe it means you will be required to buy a giant plastic controller to play SC2 and D3. I dunno. The bottom line is that Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 will come to us in a format that maximizes profit for Activision.

 

[Tek7]

LAN parties are still alive. They just come around as often as they used to.

D'oh. I meant to type, "They just don't come around as often as they used to."

But right now, I challenge you! what is important about LAN parties? I've had just as much fun at WoW LAN parties as I had at CS LAN parties.

Now, if the Battle.net is vastly inferior to what you could get with a set of CAT6 cables, then it's a problem. But what I've seen of Blizzard lately assures me it will not be.

It's not about the tech. It's about the social experience.

No game makes the difference between online gaming over a broadband connection and LAN parties more obvious than Half-Life Deathmatch.

HL1DM is a fun game to play online, but the graphics are a bit dated and it can be hard to find a low-ping server without a gaggle of crazy add-ons.

HL1DM at a LAN party is a blast. Why? Because you're in the same room with the people with whom you're playing the game. Aside from zero or single digit pings (which is far superior to double-digit pings, especially in HL1DM), there's greater satisfaction in hearing someone laugh when you thwack their in-game character with a crowbar in the same moment you score the kill.

The key difference between online gaming and LAN parties is greater social interaction. Some of the best times I've had at LAN parties have been meeting and talking with other gamers during lunch breaks or food runs--during events away from the keyboard. Forums can replicate some of that interaction, but there's no true substitute for face-to-face interaction.

My view of LAN parties is probably skewed because the last LAN I attended was comprised mostly of City of Refuge members. The atmosphere at a LAN coordinated and attended by Christian gamers is going to be more enjoyable than a more public LAN. While most LAN party coordinators discourage profanity, enforcement varies depending on the LAN.

 

[Tek7]

EDIT: Blizzard maintains that playing StarCraft II on Battle.net won't require a monthly fee. Click here and scroll down to the blue post. (For those not familiar with Blizzard forums, posts from Blizzard employees are displayed in blue text.)

Reposted. Some readers may have missed this part of my earlier post since I added it as an edit.

 

[Odale]

Did I see people just downplay the fun and importantness of LAN?

LAN's will always be vastly superior to anything over the internet because you are WITH your friends not simply connected to them via the internet.

I need a drink now.

Edit:

D'oh. I meant to type, "They just don't come around as often as they used to."

It's not about the tech. It's about the social experience.

....

Tek already said it... I got so caught up with people performing near-blasphemous-gaming talk that I had to say something!

Any more talk of LAN's aren't important and I will be FORCED to take your gamer card away!

You may continue with your SC2 nightmare game now.

 

[Tek7]

In the unlikely event Blizzard does reverse its position and decide to charge for Battle.net down the line, chances are good that crafty programmers will reverse engineer the new Battle.net just as other crafty programmers reverse engineered the original Battle.net. Blizzard may have shut down bnetd, but projects like PVPGN are still around.

I'm not advocating violating an End-User License Agreement; I'm simply predicting a likely consequence of Activision and/or Blizzard charging a monthly fee for Battle.net 2.0.

If Blizzard wants to make optional content like premium avatars or expanded profile options available at an additional cost, that might be annoying, but not a reason to get angry. Premium options would also fall under the heading of "monetizing Battle.net." As long as those premium options don't give some players an advantage in gameplay, then I don't think people will be that upset.

A good example of premium options is Blizzard's own premium World of WarCraft companion pet store. The pets don't affect gameplay, they're not required for any in-game achievements, but they make the player stand out. (Of course, whether paying $10 for a WoW companion pet improves or damages the person's standing in the eyes of others is a matter for a different debate.)

 

[Bowser]

Few examples:
* Why is SC2 3 campaigns? Profit. Why sell you one game when we can sell you 3.
* Why no LAN? Profit. They are monetizing battle.net, so you are forced to play there. Remember LAN = local, too.
* Why did they remove dedicated servers for MW2 and disallow mods? Profit. Free mods from the community compete with the paid maps they'll be putting out.

The examples you gave are entirely speculative, Ryan. I stand by that Blizzard cares about making great games and they'll do what they can to see that happen. It does usually turn into a profit for them, but that is not their primary focus. The SC2 is being released into 3 separate games because each is just so content-heavy. Blizzard is known for the content of their games, whether it's landscape (or maps, in the traditional sense), music, voice, sound, characters, story, units, etc. It's far easier for me to believe (not because I want to, but because it makes sense) that Blizzard is producing a high quality game with StarCraft II. Your LAN argument doesn't hold water either; Blizzard has faced problems in the past of people pirating or hacking their games and then playing on private networks. Blizzard is logically trying to prevent this by enabling players to connect via B.net. It's not a bad move; they want to protect their investment (and I don't necessarily mean monetary, although that is a part of it; rather I mean the time and effort they've invested into creating the game).

Bottom line is, the goal is no longer to make the best game so that people will want to play it, it's to nickle and dime customers for as much as humanly possible. Really, it's about looking at people's motivations.

Again, this is speculative. People have been saying this about gaming companies for years and is not anything new. Blizzard's motivation is to make great games. And it works out for them.

I'm simply saying that I wouldn't say Activision is running the most profitable game in history because they care about gamers.

Part of running a legitimate business is taking care of your customers. Now, I'm not saying that Activision is that smart. But I wouldn't throw Blizzard in with that heap, either.
You're also forgetting that the vast majority of Blizzard's games have always sold very well. Heck, their expansions alone can stand against most other popular games and still surpass them in quality and content. If anything, you're getting more value for your buck by playing a Blizzard game, even one as expensive as WoW.

 

[Odale]

I agree with a lot of what you are saying Bowser, and I am not going to immediately agree with RyanB, but.......

Blizzard making the games into 3 parts DOES bring them more money. They've taken 12 years to make an SC2, why not take a little longer to make it one game, instead of a game with 2 expansions.

I also fail to see how taking away LAN capability will thwart hacking. If people want to hack something, they'll do it no matter what. You mentioned people in the past have hacked their games and played them on private networks, I am assuming you are talking about SC1 and WoW. SC1's defense was so poor (by defense I mean CD key and the ability to copy the install CD) that people could google and download CD key generators... not just CD keys themselves, but programs to make more CD keys. I remember in high school, all of my friends has SC:BW. Not one of them had an original copy. I think if Blizz had made it a little more inconvenient to make copies of the game then they wouldn't have had this problem. As far as hacked copies of WoW goes, where else would you play it? It isn't exactly single player and there are tons of private servers for WoW (though litigation has decreased that number).

I do agree though, that when Blizzard makes a game, it is usually above and beyond everyone's expectations. Not having LAN is a very big miss though. One could also argue that missing LAN capability is a disservice to the customer as well.

 

[Bowser]

Not having LAN is a very big miss though. One could also argue that missing LAN capability is a disservice to the customer as well.

I will miss the LAN

Especially for an RTS, man.

 

[RyanB]

EDIT: Blizzard maintains that playing StarCraft II on Battle.net won't require a monthly fee. Click here and scroll down to the blue post. (For those not familiar with Blizzard forums, posts from Blizzard employees are displayed in blue text.)

Reposted. Some readers may have missed this part of my earlier post since I added it as an edit.

I read your previous post, but not the source. Your post said SC would not have a monthly fee, it didn't talk about the actual B.net 2.0. Looking at that thread seems it will be without monthly fee...but I'm still interested on exactly what Activision is planning to "monetize" it.

Edit: I guess I would add...yes, I'm speculating. But the responses here keep saying, "Blizzard this" and "Blizzard that". I love Blizzard, but they are gone. Not from the development standpoint, but the legal one. Blizzard is not the one making the calls here, Activision is. If you want to defend someone's track record, start with Activision because they are the ones making decisions.

Obviously not every publisher is a greedy, shallow, corporate machine. Valve is great. Activision...not so much.

 

[Elader Arkon]

I don't think it's a matter of Activision simply outright owning Blizzard (though, obviously they do), I think it's more along the lines of what Disney did with Pixar. They technically own the company, but they let them do what they do best: Make tons of money by churning out high quality products.
And as for the CEO of Activision being all about the money, the company wouldn't be anywhere nearly as successful as it is without it's leadership focusing on it. We may hate that, but that's the reality. Without companies like that focusing on the money and willing to risk millions of dollars on the unknown, the state of gaming would be look about what the indie gaming scene looks like right now.
So, if I find something I like I'll buy it. If it's got crap DRM on it, I'll remove it (and as long as there's people unhappy with the DRM, there will always be workarounds). I'll ignore the rest, likely including SC 2, because frankly I've lost interest in it. I'll still probably read the books though. I'm such a sucker for good lore...