Blizzard: I want to trust you, but you're making it difficult

[Tek7]

Before any discussion, before any links to news article, and before any long rants, let me be clear: Blizzard makes great games. That's not the issue presented in this thread. I've been playing the StarCraft II beta and have had a lot of fun with Tribe of Judah members. While I don't currently play World of WarCraft, I recognize the game is very well-designed. 11 million subscribers would agree.

That being said, I'm finding myself less and less able to continue trusting Blizzard as a company without checking my brain at the door. Here's why:


Blizzard's relationship with Activision. Vivendi and Activision announced plans to create Activision Blizzard in late 2007. The merger was approved in July 2008.

In March, Activision restructured senior management to allow Bobby Kotick to, in Kotick's own words, "become more deeply involved in areas of the business where I believe we can capture great potential and opportunity."

For those who don't keep up with gaming news, Kotick is not very well-liked by the gaming community. (The usual disclaimers when posting links to articles about Kotick stand: You're almost guaranteed to find torrents of profanity directed at the Activision CEO in the user comments section.)


StarCraft II price set at $59.99 USD. I won't go into the whole Activision/Infinity Ward debacle or speculate whether it was management at Activision or IW or a combination thereof that decided Modern Warfare 2 wouldn't support dedicated servers--but I will mention that Modern Warfare 2 is another in the very short list of PC games to retail for more than $49.99 USD.

There's no doubt that StarCraft II will sell millions of copies whether it sells for $50 or $60 USD. A price hike makes sense from a business perspective, but the hike, in combination with other news, also lends weight to concerns that Activision is calling the shots and will ruin Blizzard in the long run.

There's also the matter that the US economy is in sore shape right now. I don't think I need to expound on that topic. I just think it smacks of greed when a company charges $10 more than the norm for a product when people are getting laid off, having trouble finding work, and having their wages cut to stay employed.

And for those who argue, "Well, Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 games cost $60 USD," I say: Blizzard and Activision do not have to pay Microsoft or Sony licensing fees for a PC game release. (Licensing fees are often cited as the reason why console games cost more than PC games.)

Yes, game development is expensive. But I have trouble believing that Activision Blizzard wouldn't see massive profits even if it priced StarCraft II at $49.99 USD like most were expecting.

There's no way I can look at the price point and see it as anything but bald-faced greed.


Two StarCraft II expansion packs at a yet-to-be-determined price. If the second and third "chapters" (what would previously be called "expansion packs") of StarCraft II weigh in at full retail price, Activision Blizzard is asking people to spend $180 USD plus tax and/or shipping to purchase the full StarCraft II "series."

Yes, Blizzard has said that customers only need to purchase one game of the three to play multiplayer StarCraft II, but the same could be said for StarCraft 1--and how many people still play "vanilla" StarCraft instead of Brood War? Suggesting that a person could purchase only one of the three "chapters" of StarCraft II and have access to the full multiplayer experience borders on an insult to intelligence.

Even if Activision Blizzard sets the price point for StarCraft II expansion packs at a more reasonable $29.99 or even $39.99 USD, I find it hard to believe that people who own just one "chapter" will be playing with people who own two or more. Expansion packs typically don't work that way.

And if the expansion packs add single-player content only, piracy of the second and third "chapters" would run rampant--especially if the second and third packs cost $59.99 USD. As EA proved with the Spore debacle, even the most draconian DRM is insufficient to prevent piracy. Multiplayer games with less invasive DRM (e.g. Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead 2) may still be pirated, but to little effect; pirates are forced to play on a small handful of modified servers (most often based in countries other than America), which essentially ruins the gameplay experience.

In other words: If the expansion packs don't affect multiplayer (as Brood War did), profits would suffer--and I don't see Activision allowing that.

I don't take issue with expansion packs. Brood War was well worth the price as it added new campaigns and new units. But announcing plans for two expansion packs before release and not discussing pricing (even to say something to the effect of, "They won't be as expensive as a full release") does not bode well for gamers.

EDIT: I could write about Blizzard's explicit refusal to include LAN support in StarCraft II and cutting chat channels from Battle.net 2.0, but I'll leave those topics for others to discuss if they feel so inclined.


Again, Blizzard makes great games. But it's entirely possible to drive a company that makes great games into the ground with bad business decisions.

I want to believe Activision will at least have enough sense not to run Blizzard into the ground, but I'm seeing little evidence to support my hope.

 

[Bowser]

I think you're over-thinking this.

#1 The economy is bad, which gives them reason to charge more. You're assuming the economy is bad for only the customers, but it's bad for the developers too.

Now, I know you know that we both know developers make a lot more than us. But, if I remember correctly, just recently gamers were discouraged by the lack of quality games coming out and were concerned that the gaming industry would go under with the automotive industry.

#2 No one knows for sure why there's an increase in price. There could be good reasons behind it, or there could be bad. To assume Blizzard is being corrupted by Activision I think is a bit premature to say (unless of course you/one have/has that information).

#3 I think largely this hype is driven by what we've read in the news. In my experience, what I read in the news is about as far from the truth as you can get (for those of you who watch Fox religiously please take note). While I'm not arguing that Activision isn't evil, this idea of "Blizzard gone bad" is probably exaggerated a bit. Not to mention people have been saying Blizzard is a terrible, terrible company ever since SC1 came out, and that attitude reveals itself as every Blizzard title is released (remember how so, so many people said that WoW would fail? - that Blizzard had no idea how to make an MMO?)

#4 Lastly, I just want to add that I have many of the same concerns you do. They're valid concerns, absolutely. I just don't want them, for me or for others, lead us to believe something that's not true.

 

[Tek7]

Lastly, I just want to add that I have many of the same concerns you do. They're valid concerns, absolutely. I just don't want them, for me or for others, lead us to believe something that's not true.

Right, and I wrote the post to express my concerns along with my hope that Blizzard isn't being run into the ground by Activision. As the thread title says, I want to trust Blizzard. I'm just having a hard time of it.

 

[Elader Arkon]

I think the reason for the price hike has to do with the money being raked in by console gamers. People on consoles have been paying $60 for years, so it's rather surprising that game publishers hadn't upped the price sooner. I expect to see more and more pc games retail at $60, as that number seems to be becoming the standard for videogames in general. It's got less to do with Activision/Blizzard than it has to do with business sense (and possibly mixed with a touch of inflation).

Also I do actually contend Bobby Kotick is nowhere near as evil as most people make him out to be. He knows how to make money sure, but he is also responsible for bringing a failing company back to become one of the top two most powerful developing/publishing entity in the gaming biz. One doesn't do that without knowing what they're doing, one cannot do it without intimate knowledge of how the industry works.

Even if Activision Blizzard sets the price point for StarCraft II expansion packs at a more reasonable $29.99 or even $39.99 USD, I find it hard to believe that people who own just one "chapter" will be playing with people who own two or more. Expansion packs typically don't work that way

If I remember correctly, the Dawn of War series did just that, and Dawn of War II continues the tradition by not requiring its expansion Chaos Rising in order to play competitively in multiplayer. The only downside to not owning an expansion when playing multiplayer is that you don't have access to the new race(s).

 

[RyanB]

I think you're over-thinking this.

#1 The economy is bad, which gives them reason to charge more. You're assuming the economy is bad for only the customers, but it's bad for the developers too.

Now, I know you know that we both know developers make a lot more than us. But, if I remember correctly, just recently gamers were discouraged by the lack of quality games coming out and were concerned that the gaming industry would go under with the automotive industry.

When the economy is bad, people spend less on entertainment. Now, sometimes cheap things get a boost (like cheap beer, etc), and games ARE cheap...but when the ecomony is bad, prices go down. In fact, prices have gone down. Even though MSRP on console games is still $60, I can't think of one big release recently that you couldn't pre-order with a $10 or $20 credit. $30-40 MSRP for games within a month or two is now the norm.

#2 No one knows for sure why there's an increase in price. There could be good reasons behind it, or there could be bad. To assume Blizzard is being corrupted by Activision I think is a bit premature to say (unless of course you/one have/has that information).

Because they can, so it makes business sense to do so. It's Starcraft. Millions will buy it regardless of a $10 bump. Whether you see that as "good" or "bad" is really an opinion, which is based on what we feel the role of a corporation is. I think there is a problem when it's 100% about money, and that excessive greed has historically shown to be bad in the long run. Kotick will be long gone before that bites Activision too hard, though.

#3 I think largely this hype is driven by what we've read in the news. In my experience, what I read in the news is about as far from the truth as you can get (for those of you who watch Fox religiously please take note). While I'm not arguing that Activision isn't evil, this idea of "Blizzard gone bad" is probably exaggerated a bit. Not to mention people have been saying Blizzard is a terrible, terrible company ever since SC1 came out, and that attitude reveals itself as every Blizzard title is released (remember how so, so many people said that WoW would fail? - that Blizzard had no idea how to make an MMO?)

Blizzard is not good or bad. Blizzard does not exist. It's just a brand name now. Brand names are particularly effective, though, which is why people use them. People hate on Activision and then pretend Blizzard (which doesn't exist) is awesome. People hate the RIAA/MPAA, then buy up CDs and movies from the media conglomerates they represent.

So I just say...don't be fooled. Much like the spoon...there is no Blizzard. They are owned completely by Activision. Are there still plenty of great ex-Blizzard developers who work for Activision and will make some great games? Sure! But make no mistake, there is no "Blizzard" when it comes to how the customers will be nickeled and dimed to death. Besides, chances are that a lot of the SC2 and D3 developers will leave and start their own company after being fired from Activision for trying to get their bonuses.

Personally I think SC2 and D3 will be some of the greatest games of this generation...but I will not buy them. There are too many other great games to deal with this mess.

 

[Bowser]

When the economy is bad, people spend less on entertainment. Now, sometimes cheap things get a boost (like cheap beer, etc), and games ARE cheap...but when the ecomony is bad, prices go down. In fact, prices have gone down. Even though MSRP on console games is still $60, I can't think of one big release recently that you couldn't pre-order with a $10 or $20 credit. $30-40 MSRP for games within a month or two is now the norm.

You're missing the point. When I see the economy is bad on my end, I want to make more money to compensate for higher prices. And, prices have gone up, not down. I'm not talking about games when I mention the economy. I mean the price of food, gas, taxes, interest rates, along those lines.

Because they can, so it makes business sense to do so. It's Starcraft. Millions will buy it regardless of a $10 bump. Whether you see that as "good" or "bad" is really an opinion, which is based on what we feel the role of a corporation is. I think there is a problem when it's 100% about money, and that excessive greed has historically shown to be bad in the long run. Kotick will be long gone before that bites Activision too hard, though.

Just because a business can do something doesn't mean they will. That's bad logic. Besides, good business sense is knowing when to back off and do the right thing. To think a business has to be successful by charging lots of money for a product is naive, I think. There are many ways a business can be successful without overcharging its customers.

Blizzard is not good or bad. Blizzard does not exist. It's just a brand name now. Brand names are particularly effective, though, which is why people use them. People hate on Activision and then pretend Blizzard (which doesn't exist) is awesome. People hate the RIAA/MPAA, then buy up CDs and movies from the media conglomerates they represent.

So I just say...don't be fooled. Much like the spoon...there is no Blizzard. They are owned completely by Activision.

I'm really not sure what you're saying by this. Blizzard does exist. Just because one owns another doesn't mean the other doesn't exist. Slaves existed. We exist (as God's children). I think you're misunderstanding the relationship Blizzard has with Activision.

 

[Keero]

Blizzard = the new Santa: We get our gifts but we don't know how since we fall asleep after we left out the cookies and milk. Cookies and milk that cost $60 mind you.

Besides, good business sense is knowing when to back off.

Guitar Hero series says hi.

 

[OrryW]

Blizzard is not good or bad. Blizzard does not exist.

Actually, in the merger between Activision and Vivendi(the company that owned Blizzard), Vivendi ended up owning more of Activision-Blizzard than Activision did.

Activision-Blizzard is a subsidiary of Vivendi SA. And Activision and Blizzard are two separate subsidiaries of Activision-Blizzard, so Blizzard exists as much as it ever did, it just has one more link between it and Vivendi than it used to.

 

[Hescominsoon]

The CEO of Activision is ON RECORD as saying his goal is to milk the brands for everything they can. they aren't concerned with improvements. Blizzard as we have known it is dead. They WILL jack the price and they WILL break it up into as many pieces and charge for them as they can. That's their choice. My choice is to not buy any of it.

 

[Kralgon]

1) Considering that the beta was delayed from early summer 2009 until Feb 2010, I'm not worried at all that Blizzard is operating on Activision's timeline. They're taking as long as they need to, which is, at the core, the reason why Blizzard games have been historically good. That said, most of the big boys from SC/BW are no longer with Blizzard (the main exception being Pardo). But then again, the more I think about it, the more I think that BW being not just great, but one of the greatest RTS ever that is still played professionally 10+ years after its release is as much luck as it was good design.

2) Development costs are constantly increasing. SC2 has been in development since 2003. I don't think a $10 increase in price is unjustifiable given the long development cycle. Dev teams are also bigger than ever to keep up with all the new technology, and they have to pay their employees somehow. $60 in 2010 adjusted for inflation is still substantially less than $50 in 1998.

3) The reason they're splitting up the game is because they want to generate enough content in the single player for it to be worth three different games. I have it from an ex-Blizzard employee who worked on SC2 that the single player experience is unlike any other and will be well worth it. This ex-employee is a top-level RTS player who is otherwise critical of SC2. The terran campaign itself will blow away any other SP campaign in any other RTS. Think of it as buying a new game every 1.5-2 years. That's not unreasonable at all. How many games are you playing that far out from its release anyway? Even if it's priced at $60 (which is not at all confirmed by any means), $60 every 1.5-2 years is not bad at all as long as there is enough content to justify the price of a standalone game. And if it's not worth it to you, don't buy it. IME, there were plenty of people playing vanilla Starcraft 4-5 years after the release of BW.

B.Net 2.0 is another can of worms though, and it's yet to be seen whether it is an improvement or a step back from the original B.Net. There are plans to add lots of functionality after the retail release, but Blizz employees have been pretty vague as to what exactly those additions will be.

 

[Lazarus]

The CEO of Activision is ON RECORD as saying his goal is to milk the brands for everything they can. they aren't concerned with improvements. Blizzard as we have known it is dead. They WILL jack the price and they WILL break it up into as many pieces and charge for them as they can. That's their choice. My choice is to not buy any of it.

I applaud your decision. Seriously. I won't be buying any Activision games either.

 

[Elader Arkon]

It's a pity when company politics dictate the decision to not buy a game regardless of how good the game is.

My thought processes for buying a game: If a game is good, I'll buy it. If it's good and has terrible DRM (looking at you newer Ubisoft games), I'll buy it for console. If it isn't on console (a rarity), I won't buy it. The only weight I put into developer/publisher is in regards to potential DRM and whether I've liked the games they've put out. For example: Bioware. Is all I have to do is hear pretty much anyone say it's good and I'll buy it, because every game I've played from them is awesome. Same for Relic and Bethesda. I require a bit more convincing however to buy something new from most other developers.

If someone says they'll milk something for all its worth and then produce something absolutely astounding, I'd be willing to cough up over and over and over again for that kind of experience. The only time I have an issue with it is when it ceases to be something amazing. Going with the whole Blizzard topic, if the first single player mode is as epic as the hype claims, I won't have any issues whatsoever handing over another $60 for a similarly epic experience when the next one comes out. If it turns out to be lackluster the first time, then I likely won't be paying for the second.

 

[Odale]

Blizzard's relationship with Activision

If you don't like Activision, don't buy their products.

StarCraft II price set at $59.99 USD.

When it comes down to it, $10 is only $10. If you can afford to spend $50 on a game, you can certainly afford a $60 game.

Two StarCraft II expansion packs at a yet-to-be-determined price.

This is where I agree with you, kind of. I see "bald-faced greed" when two expansions are offered at the same price as the base-game itself.

I haven't been keeping up with the Activision/Blizzard marriage, but from what I have seen in WoW, its "interesting" business practice.

 

[matdom]

agreed.

 

[XionTawa]

When it comes down to it, $10 is only $10. If you can afford to spend $50 on a game, you can certainly afford a $60 game.

When you only make $16k/yr and have kids, $10 can make or break any purchase decision...but anyways...

My big issue with Activision is that they DO increase prices because they can and they have said that... When releasing the incredibly over priced map pack for MW2, THEY said they were going to sell it for $20... I wouldn't even of paid $10 for it... Infinity Ward (may you RIP XD) wanted to price it under $10 which is what it was worth IMO, and good thoughts from them, but in the end, they did not have control of the price, and originally Activision wanted the price to be $20...

 

[Lazarus]

When you only make $16k/yr and have kids, $10 can make or break any purchase decision...but anyways...

Holy cow, man, you only make 16K a year and you have kids? O_O How do you manage it? Does your wife work?

And Elader, it may be a pity, but I don't care how good a game is, if it has DRM I don't like or is made by a company whose business practices I don't like, I won't buy it.

I won't support companies that pull those shenanigans if I don't have to, it's like giving your kids ice cream after they've trashed the house and put a baseball through the front window.

 

[XionTawa]

Holy cow, man, you only make 16K a year and you have kids? O_O How do you manage it? Does your wife work?

And Elader, it may be a pity, but I don't care how good a game is, if it has DRM I don't like or is made by a company whose business practices I don't like, I won't buy it.

I won't support companies that pull those shenanigans if I don't have to, it's like giving your kids ice cream after they've trashed the house and put a baseball through the front window.

With God and loans it all works out...heh...making more than I ever have and we have been out on our own for 4 years ...

And I agree with: "I won't support companies that pull those shenanigans if I don't have to, it's like giving your kids ice cream after they've trashed the house and put a baseball through the front window."

 

[OrryW]

And Elader, it may be a pity, but I don't care how good a game is, if it has DRM I don't like or is made by a company whose business practices I don't like, I won't buy it.

I won't support companies that pull those shenanigans if I don't have to, it's like giving your kids ice cream after they've trashed the house and put a baseball through the front window.

Ideally if you buy good games, with non-restrictive(non-restrictive meaning that it doesn't effect your overall enjoyment enough to care that it's there) DRM, even from a company that is known for not caring about it's customers then they will see that better games sell better and produce better games.

I don't care who made a game so long as, for me, it's a worthwhile experience. They just won't get any money from me if they make a game I hear is bad.

 

[Lazarus]

If you buy good(or bad) games from a company that does not care about its customers - you're rewarding their uncaring mindset.
This is why CEOs can be all "Hey guys, we can treat the customers like ------ and they'll buy our games anyway!"

And it just gets worse. And worse. I don't see any sense in supporting that. Especially when there's so many other good games -from- good companies.

 

[Elader Arkon]

If you buy good(or bad) games from a company that does not care about its customers - you're rewarding their uncaring mindset.
This is why CEOs can be all "Hey guys, we can treat the customers like ------ and they'll buy our games anyway!"

And it just gets worse. And worse. I don't see any sense in supporting that. Especially when there's so many other good games -from- good companies.

The problem with that is Activision isn't just another developer -they're one of the largest videogame publishers on the market. So while I can *sort of* understand why you wouldn't buy something developed by Activision itself (in the same way I *sort of* understand people not shopping at wal-mart because they sell stuff made in china), not buying anything with the Activision logo would be like not buying a book because you don't like the company that published it. In the end, you're only hurting the people you claim to want to support (the developers/authors).