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

I don't really want to support the devs either if they're willing to have a business relationship with an evil company. You associate with evil companies like that, you're saying you approve of their evilness and you want to join in.

And I think people like your example who don't shop at Walmart are acting sensibly - ehhh... pretty sure 99% of the stuff in Wal-mart is made in China. 99% of the stuff in most other stores is also made in China. You have to really search to find the stuff that isn't - but it's there.

Still, if you think their games are worth playing and you don't mind the company being evil, be my guest. I ain't judging. Just don't kick up a fuss about high prices and such. That would just be wrong. >_>
 
Lazarus said:
I don't really want to support the devs either if they're willing to have a business relationship with an evil company. You associate with evil companies like that, you're saying you approve of their evilness and you want to join in.

And I think people like your example who don't shop at Walmart are acting sensibly - ehhh... pretty sure 99% of the stuff in Wal-mart is made in China. 99% of the stuff in most other stores is also made in China. You have to really search to find the stuff that isn't - but it's there.

Still, if you think their games are worth playing and you don't mind the company being evil, be my guest. I ain't judging. Just don't kick up a fuss about high prices and such. That would just be wrong. >_>
Click to expand...

I still don't understand why it is Activision is under such fire for being 'evil'. Guess it's just their turn under the sun for having an CEO that doesn't now how seriously the gaming media takes his every word, often out of context, coupled with the recent internal issues with Infinity Ward. In all respects one would think that EA is a far 'worse' company when it comes to business practice (here's looking at you SecuROM).

When dealing with a large company, its all about the marketing and what is going to make the most money. It doesn't matter what company it is, if that's not their goal, they're a NPO. When dealing with them you have to think about it in those terms. Activision does something you don't like, lets say a new form of DRM. Actually wait, change it to EA. They put this DRM on a very hyped up, sure to sell game. This DRM causes massive outcry, and causes the game to be the number one most pirated game at the time. EA sees this, tweaks the DRM a bit and tries another game. Another outcry. They tweak some more, but people don't like it. Eventually EA figures it out and moves on to another approach to fight piracy.

Now to the crux of the matter: EA does something > specific public outcry > EA tries to improve it > still outcry > EA makes more tweaks > still outcry >EA drops it and moves on to something else> No more/much less outcry.

By simply saying I'm not going to buy from Activision because they're evil or are only out for the money (no duh, they aren't a non-profit organization after all) isn't sending any message at all that they can work with, so obviously Activision won't listen to you, thus adding to the fire. By buying what you consider worthwhile from them (ie the good games) and not buying what you don't or have issues with allows them to see what is wrong and go to lengths to fix it.

To put it in the perspective of Wal-Mart: all the people boycotting it because of its dealings with China go in and buy only American Made items. Wal-art sees a rise in revenue from American Made (on second thought, they probably wouldn't due to the incredibly small minority that actually do it but w/e). Wal-Mart runs some studies, finds out that there's a demographic for American Made, and starts stocking its shelves with more of it. If the trend continues, the majority might even eventually become American Made thus making an 'evil' company a 'good' company. [In reality it is a ton more complex than that, but on a basic level that's what would happen].


And finally as for the topic of raising PC game prices to $60. I predicted it years ago when console game prices went up. It's not Activision's fault it is going up, but rather the consumer. The vast majority of people are willing to happily pay $60 for a video game, and those who can't buy it or refuse to pay that much are in such a small minority it doesn't matter (essentially the money earned from the people who did covers the cost of the customers who didn't and still earns profit).
 
Since some countries will have the option of buying Starcraft 2 on a monthly subscription access (South America) or buying full retail unlimited Battle.net access it makes the value of SC2 even more compelling.

The reality of the amount of playable time out of a game like Starcraft 2 compared to other games is insane. You can still go to Walmart and pick up Starcraft 1. I imagine someone who (like myself) who has been playing it off and on for the last 10 years feels like he has gotten his fair share of value out of the $50 game.

That's what it is for Blizzard. They realize they have a good product with some enduring value which, if bought at retail, gives you FREE access to their online gameplay. Some other consoles and games don't have that *cough WoW* type of FREE service.

At the end of the day, I'm surprised they didn't charge $100. Either way, $60 is a great deal.
 
Last edited:
I won't contend that StarCraft II won't be worth $60 USD. I just resent having to pay $10 more than I'm used to purchase a day-one release. I was ready to pay $50 happily; if I have to pay $60, I'll grumble all the while. I understand cash is cash, regardless of the attitude of the person paying it, but I find myself even more unwilling to fork over money to play WoW now.

There are a few reasons I take issue with a $60 price tag:

As soon as the computer refresh project I'm working on now ends, I'll be unemployed again. My only pool for video game purchases is gift money (birthday and Christmas).

I loathe paying full retail price for anything, but especially media (video games, DVDs, CDs, etc.). Again, I was ready to pay what I anticipated to be full price ($50 USD) for StarCraft II, but only because it was StarCraft II. Since the price hike was announced, I've been scouring the Internet for a pre-order sale and have found zilch so far.

The price hike would also be more tolerable if there was a decent pre-order bonus. To give you an idea of how lousy the bonuses are, here's Amazon's idea of a pre-order "bonus":
Ask the "StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty" Developers & Producers
Are you a huge StarCraft fan? Have you been anxiously awaiting this sequel for over ten years? Do you have burning questions to ask the developers and producers of the game? Well, here's your chance. Submit your video question to Blizzard about the long awaited next chapter.
Click to expand...
Srsly, Amazon?

I'm also frustrated because I'm stuck either (a) pre-ordering (there has to be SOME company other than Gamestop that handles computer game pre-orders, right?) and paying tax so I can pick it up day one, (b) buying it on Amazon and selecting Free Super Saver Shipping to dodge tax and shipping and waiting for 5-9 business days to play the game, (c) showing up at Wal-Mart at 12:01 a.m. on release date but still paying tax, or (d) not buying the game (which is an option I reject since the game is, admittedly, awesome). Right now, I'm leaning toward buying the game at a midnight release at a 24-hour Wal-Mart; 5-9 business days is a long time.

Keep in mind that tax adds another ~$6.50, which just makes it all the more frustrating to someone used to buying games at discount prices.

Maybe refusing to return to WoW as protest against Activision Blizzard's greed will give me some solace.
 
Tek7 said:
Maybe refusing to return to WoW as protest against Activision Blizzard's greed will give me some solace.
Click to expand...

I have been WoW free for 3 months, because the ONLY real endgame to it is raiding and my work schedule does not allow for that...I want to go back, but there is nothing for me there, so I don't :P And Activision is Satan!
 
XionTawa said:
I have been WoW free for 3 months, because the ONLY real endgame to it is raiding and my work schedule does not allow for that...I want to go back, but there is nothing for me there, so I don't :P And Activision is Satan!
Click to expand...

I don't play WoW because Guild Wars is so fun. ;)
 
Tek7 said:
...Again, I was ready to pay what I anticipated to be full price ($50 USD) for StarCraft II.
Click to expand...

Again, you had in your mind that the sequel to the best-selling, longest-lived RTS game would only be $50 when it went on sale. Was that really a logical assumption? Of course not. Also, you knew that Activision was controlling Blizzard; should that affirmed your price of $50? No, definitely not.

Also, if you do get in line at Wal-Mart at 12:01am to buy SC2, you're already several hours too late to get your copy.

Tek7 said:
Maybe refusing to return to WoW as protest against Activision Blizzard's greed will give me some solace.
Click to expand...

You should have that solace by now as you haven't actually paid for a WoW subscription in years.

Edit: A $10 price hike isn't exactly greed when competing games cost the same and when it is the regular price for console games. Now the "expansions" are another story. I agree with Lloren.
 
Last edited:
Odale said:
Also, you knew that Activision was controlling Blizzard.
Click to expand...

Again I will have to point out that it is the other way around, Vivendi(the company that owned Blizzard before the merger) now owns Activision-Blizzard, actually before Activision's first $60 PC game, it is entirely the other way from what most people seem to think.
 
Then why, may I ask, did all of these issues concerning money start when Activision entered the picture?

This is beside the point. Activision seems to have a reputation of milking products for money (which is a viable business practice). People here have seen it/felt it, numerous posts have been made about it. So then why does the $10 hike seem like a surprise?
 
Odale said:
Then why, may I ask, did all of these issues concerning money start when Activision entered the picture?

This is beside the point. Activision seems to have a reputation of milking products for money (which is a viable business practice). People here have seen it/felt it, numerous posts have been made about it. So then why does the $10 hike seem like a surprise?
Click to expand...

I am not that surprised, since the cost of living has been going up...but I complain like crazy...because even though they raised minimum wage in Indiana by $2...my pay stayed the same...rent went up...my pay stayed the same...bills went up...my pay stayed the same...and now, my bills are more than I make...so when something I can barely afford anyways (video games) goes up in price...I get mad and upset...and the more the cost of games go up, the less I can play them...so, I only have two place to target my anger, my employer or the video game companies...and I am angry at both... Business is Business, and not something I know much about...but I am SICK of all this Business, that is not doing any more than taking advantage of people...
 
Business can only take advantage of you if you let it. No one forces us to buy anything nor are we forced to work anywhere. We make the choices based on risk vs reward and the seller or creator makes their choices on selling the product based on supply vs demand.
 
Odale said:
Again, you had in your mind that the sequel to the best-selling, longest-lived RTS game would only be $50 when it went on sale. Was that really a logical assumption?
Click to expand...
I made the assumption in 2007 when $60 PC games were unheard of. When SC2 was first announced, sites like Gamestop and Amazon listed it for $49.99. It was only after Blizzard posted a press release announcing the price hike that online retailers followed suit.

Odale said:
Also, if you do get in line at Wal-Mart at 12:01am to buy SC2, you're already several hours too late to get your copy.
Click to expand...
I started a 30-day Amazon Prime free trial and pre-ordered StarCraft II from Amazon, so I'll receive SC2 delivered to my door on release day for $39.99 ($20 credit from my purchase of Super Mario Galaxy 2, no tax, no shipping). So no worries there.

Odale said:
You should have that solace by now as you haven't actually paid for a WoW subscription in years.
Click to expand...
I meant that never returning to WoW (future tense) would serve as some solace.

Odale said:
Edit: A $10 price hike isn't exactly greed when competing games cost the same and when it is the regular price for console games.
Click to expand...
None of the $60 "competing" games (Modern Warfare 2, Assassin's Creed II) are, IMHO, worth purchasing and I already addressed why the comparison to console game pricing doesn't hold in a previous post (publishers pay licensing fees to Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft for console games, which accounts for part of the price).

Odale said:
Then why, may I ask, did all of these issues concerning money start when Activision entered the picture?
Click to expand...
Because Blizzard never sold a game for more than the standard MSRP before Activision restructured Blizzard senior management?

I think the discussion extends beyond the price point for StarCraft II. It extends to WoW and all future Blizzard games. If Activision, a company notorious for abusing a franchise in an attempt to maximize profits, has their say with the WarCraft and StarCraft franchises, how long until they trash them like they did with Guitar Hero?

Odale said:
This is beside the point. Activision seems to have a reputation of milking products for money (which is a viable business practice). People here have seen it/felt it, numerous posts have been made about it. So then why does the $10 hike seem like a surprise?
Click to expand...
Because we had hoped that Activision's influence over Blizzard wasn't as pervasive as this. I suppose that's what it comes down to.

Only time will give us more evidence to support or refute our concerns that Activision may ruin Blizzard and its games.

To summarize: I really don't want the StarCraft franchise to turn into the strategy equivalent of the Guitar Hero franchise.
 
1) Blizzard HQ is about a 2 miles from my house, I have many Blizzard employees as neighbors, and so on. It's been a long long time since Blizzard was 100% independent ... like 1994 long ago, which is around Warcraft-launch time and just 3 years after Blizzard was born as S&S. So they've always had to deal with external pressure on whatever they're doing. But, in the in-between time, they've created the Warcraft franchise, the Diable franchise, and the Starcraft franchise. Not shabby. The Activision deal came in 2008 ... when Activision had the Guitar Hero juggernaut and when Bliz had the WoW juggernaut. Clearly Activision-Blizzard itself, much less their majority Vivendi owners, want to kill the golden goose and they haven't. They coudl easily increase the monthly fee by a buck or two come out ahead. They could charge for patches. They could micro-transaction out the wazoo. They could cancel Blizcon (or charge more for it, given that it's always oversubscribed and they (supposedly) still lose money on it). A few transparently profit-making decisions have been made and I have my shiny flying horse to show for it ... but overall, what stands out to me is the decisions that they HAVEN'T made.... It seems to me that they've managed to stay a REMARKABLY independent non-independent company for more than a decade and a half now...
2) I remember paying $79.99 for Ultima III for my IBM PCjr in 1985. Ignoring the waves of self-incrimination that come from that sentence ... I don't know if there's been that static a thing around gaming prices. Certainly, no one woudl pay $80 for a (non-collector set game ... without some cool controller) today. But people did then (or at least I did...that was like 3 months of allowance, sigh...). Why should a probably lousy game with a marketing tie (Toy Story III) get the same price point as a game that's been 4 years in the works? $60 ain't cheap, true. And sure, there aren't any license fees like a console game. But Starcraft II costing the same as, say, Kane and Lynch? It just doesn't feel expensive.
3) Seeing how the whole expansion/patching process for SC works will be interesting. There clearly won't be $15 monthly fees to support patches like WoW, that goes without saying. However, they will have to supposed battle.net activitiy and the initial price of the game is the only time they get to charge for that (potentially ... depends on how expansions end up being "optional" or not). Again, that ongoing support infrastructure means there's more in the product than a one-shot game like, um, Iron Man II: The Game. Most games do offer "free" multiplayer in one form or another now ... but not all. But maybe that shoudl justify the premium.
 
Gilga said:
It's been a long long time since Blizzard was 100% independent ... like 1994 long ago, which is around Warcraft-launch time and just 3 years after Blizzard was born as S&S.
Click to expand...
/me hums the Lost Vikings intro
 
Tek7 said:
Speaking of Battle.net 2.0: Kittens.
Click to expand...

I think that video made me the most interested I've been in Starcraft 2 yet! What you mean there was a guy in that video talking about the Battle.net 2.0 problems? Didn't hear him. What I want to know is do you think the new Starcraft2 kitten unit will get nerfed becuase it's OP? I think the kitten unit would just rip up the nerf ball if you ask me... :p

Tek7 said:
/me hums the Lost Vikings intro
Click to expand...

Ooooh they made Lost Vikings? +1 to Blizzard for me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top