Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: SpardaSon21 on May 31, 2010, 01:28:52 am
-
Found this on another forum, and I thought you guys should all know about it.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128252 (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=128252)
You need to scroll down to the bottom since the post is a laundry list of how Activision is ass-****ing the video game industry, but basically as part of a restructuring move at Activision Kotick has moved CFO Thomas Tippl into the so-called "Blizzard business unit" as its COO, with Blizzard CEO Morhaime reporting directly to him, and Tippl reporting directly to Kotick. The other three units are the "Activision-owned IP business unit", the "licensed property business unit", and considering how much milk Activision wants to get out of it, Call of Duty gets a unit all to itself. Kotick obviously never saw the new Robin Hood where King John's mother tells him milking a dry udder will get him kicked off the stool.
-
**** activision
-
....
And this is ZOMG TERRIBLE THE WORLD IS ENDING because....?
/me goes off to the games library, checks for Activision or Blizzard titles, comes up empty
You know, if you really think this is so terrible (and not just common business practice in a capitalist economy), don't buy their games.
-
....
And this is ZOMG TERRIBLE THE WORLD IS ENDING because....?
/me goes off to the games library, checks for Activision or Blizzard titles, comes up empty
You know, if you really think this is so terrible (and not just common business practice in a capitalist economy), don't buy their games.
But I really want to. :(
-
Is piracy killing the gaming industry?
I sure hope so.
-
Someone needs to sit for a week on a naughty stool...
I remember the glorious olden days, when Activision and Blizzard were famous for the games they released, not the...disputable...decisions the make on the internal. Oh, well...
As far as i'm concerned, the gaming industry could die forever, if it wasn't for Yahtzees ZP reviews. :P
-
But... StarCraft :(
-
Until I see different, I'm going to believe Mike Morhaime when he says Blizzard remains functionally independent from the rest of Activision proper.
-
Until I see different, I'm going to believe Mike Morhaime when he says Blizzard remains functionally independent from the rest of Activision proper.
So does this news not qualify as 'seeing different'?
-
But... StarCraft :(
Am I the only person in the world that doesn't like that game?
-
Don't like as in, you don't actively like it, or as in, you dislike it? Either way, "in the world" --> probably not.
-
But... StarCraft :(
Am I the only person in the world that doesn't like that game?
I can't say i don't like it, it's just that i never understood the Hype around it.
It's pretty much the same game as Warcraft I+II ( in a Sci-fi setting instead of Fantasy ) or the C+C series.
But nevermind me, i can't understand the Hype around 98% of the games, so...
-
Well, it's an "e-sport", so a lot of the hype comes from that. And then there are the people like me, who suck at RTS's but still think they're fun, and who like Sci-Fi.
-
But... StarCraft :(
Am I the only person in the world that doesn't like that game?
I can't say i don't like it, it's just that i never understood the Hype around it.
It's pretty much the same game as Warcraft I+II ( in a Sci-fi setting instead of Fantasy ) or the C+C series.
But nevermind me, i can't understand the Hype around 98% of the games, so...
It's almost perfectly balanced and it is extremely sensitive to skill. This makes it a very rewarding game to play.
These traits aren't particularly easy to grasp until you put in time to learn the game in the context of competitive multiplayer, so you won't pick up on them in casual gameplay or screenshots or the like.
-
Hm, this might explain it, as i never played this game in MP over internet.
-
Once you start to learn the Starcraft metagame - the competitive strategies and the micro required to execute them - the game becomes really engaging.
This is because every single action, from moment zero of the match, feels freighted with meaning. As you race to clone your SCV's mine orders and start your build order, as you send a single worker out to scout and try to figure out where the enemy base is, as you micro your scout against his workers to try to see as much of his base as possible, you can feel a tangible connection between every mouse click and your chance of winning the match.
It's a rush.
-
For some. For others, the training required smells less like a game and more like a chore.
-
Blizzard has had ten years to balance and bugfix Starcraft. That's enough time for even Ubisoft or EA to balance and bugfix a game to near perfection.
-
Blizzard has had ten years to balance and bugfix Starcraft. That's enough time for even Ubisoft or EA to balance and bugfix a game to near perfection.
Or let EA to re-desing it's latest C&C games storyline to a one with some meaning.
-
Yes, EA is known for ****ing things up, however with ten years they could probably manage to un-**** the C&C storyline.
-
Yes, EA is known for ****ing things up, however with ten years they could probably manage to un-**** the C&C storyline.
Yeah, but why would they do that, if people are buying the ****ed up ones anyway. :D
-
Because it's not unprofitable?
C'mon you apes, start boycotting.
-
So does this news not qualify as 'seeing different'?
It might. But the whole thing read like...well, they were making interesting assumptions and inferences throughout. That is, someone mentions that there have been discussions about microtransactions, so clearly Blizzard is under Activision's evil influence. Because, like, it's completely implausible that anyone at Blizzard would have spoken about microtransactions if they hadn't been bought. And, hey, three months after the merger SC2 was revealed to be a trilogy. Which is totally something else we can lay at Activision's feet, it's not as though Blizzard might possibly have been planning something along those lines for a while--and, incidentally, is completely absurd, what with each installment having thirty missions and, oh, production values to put those in SC/WCIII to shame. I bet Blizzard was totally going to ship 90 missions on one disc. Or, I dunno, more than one disc. Or, hey, look, a cease and desist order! Because it's totally wrong for companies to change their minds eight years later. Christ.
I could go on, but at heart? They're not credible, because they try too hard.
This is coming from a guy who thinks that Kotick is basically a bad person--see that horse**** about pessimism and fear.
-
So does this news not qualify as 'seeing different'?
It might. But the whole thing read like...well, they were making interesting assumptions and inferences throughout. That is, someone mentions that there have been discussions about microtransactions, so clearly Blizzard is under Activision's evil influence. Because, like, it's completely implausible that anyone at Blizzard would have spoken about microtransactions if they hadn't been bought. And, hey, three months after the merger SC2 was revealed to be a trilogy. Which is totally something else we can lay at Activision's feet, it's not as though Blizzard might possibly have been planning something along those lines for a while--and, incidentally, is completely absurd, what with each installment having thirty missions and, oh, production values to put those in SC/WCIII to shame. I bet Blizzard was totally going to ship 90 missions on one disc. Or, I dunno, more than one disc. Or, hey, look, a cease and desist order! Because it's totally wrong for companies to change their minds eight years later. Christ.
I could go on, but at heart? They're not credible, because they try too hard.
This is coming from a guy who thinks that Kotick is basically a bad person--see that horse**** about pessimism and fear.
That's not the news I'm talking about.
-
http://www.massively.com/2010/03/31/acti-blizz-restructuring-assigns-new-executive-to-blizzard/ (http://www.massively.com/2010/03/31/acti-blizz-restructuring-assigns-new-executive-to-blizzard/)
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/03/30/activision-cfo-thomas-tippl-now-coo/ (http://www.joystiq.com/2010/03/30/activision-cfo-thomas-tippl-now-coo/)
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/03/activision-quietly-restructures-senior-management-and-internal-organization.html (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/03/activision-quietly-restructures-senior-management-and-internal-organization.html)
Yeah, GB was talking about that news up there.
-
I realize that. I'm saying--yeah, maybe it means Blizzard's d0med and/or no longer independent (it's corporate speak. It could mean anything. Though, yes, given that Kotick's, well, Kotick, there's cause for concern). But the screed linked to in the OP sure as hell isn't the way to demonstrate it.
-
**** activision
:yes:
-
I realize that. I'm saying--yeah, maybe it means Blizzard's d0med and/or no longer independent (it's corporate speak. It could mean anything. Though, yes, given that Kotick's, well, Kotick, there's cause for concern). But the screed linked to in the OP sure as hell isn't the way to demonstrate it.
Er, no, it means Blizzard is doomed, since the head guy at Blizzard now answers to a guy who answers directly to Kotick. If this really were a merger of equals between Activision and Blizzard, then Morhaime and Kotick would be sharing the top spot instead of Morhaime being subordinate to one of Kotick's suited hacks.
-
Blizzard has had ten years to balance and bugfix Starcraft. That's enough time for even Ubisoft or EA to balance and bugfix a game to near perfection.
You've just highlighted the difference.
As soon as EA is done with the latest C&C incarnation and moved on to the next there is little or no attention paid to the previous versions. StarCraft received patches for years... I think it still gets the occasional bug fix or minor balance change to adapt to the changing realities of the present. Unless something significant changes I feel confident that Blizzard will continue that process... StarCraft 2 will hopefully be a game to be played for many years yet.
-
I would actually not care about this situation, but the fact that Diablo 3 doesn't have LAN support just angers me beyond believe!
There is no way I can play that game with my future offsprings after Activision-Blizzard closes Battle.Net do to /B/ raids.
-
I would actually not care about this situation, but the fact that Diablo 3 doesn't have LAN support just angers me beyond believe!
There is no way I can play that game with my future offsprings after Activision-Blizzard closes Battle.Net do to /B/ raids.
From a purely speculative point I figure when that kind of things happen and software falls into the abandonware category someone will be around to make it work somehow.
-
Yeah, and the guy that was in charge of Xbox Live is now in charge of Battle.net 2.0
This, and that explain why it sucks monkey balls...
"So good you won't want LAN?" They make me laugh.
No chat channels, public or private. Impossible-to-set-up private games. Down for maintenance half the time. Segregated servers.
I know its the BETA but half the stuff doesn't even work, or is just not there.
What do we get in return for all this crap? Facebook intergration. Who the hell wants that?
Either they're screwing up development big time, or the PR department is retarded. ("Do you really want chat channels?" **** YES)
Here's hoping someone will make it work before it becomes abandonware, regardless of the illegality of it.
-
Yeah, and the guy that was in charge of Xbox Live is now in charge of Battle.net 2.0
This, and that explain why it sucks monkey balls...
"So good you won't want LAN?" They make me laugh.
No chat channels, public or private. Impossible-to-set-up private games. Down for maintenance half the time. Segregated servers.
I know its the BETA but half the stuff doesn't even work, or is just not there.
What do we get in return for all this crap? Facebook intergration. Who the hell wants that?
Either they're screwing up development big time, or the PR department is retarded. ("Do you really want chat channels?" **** YES)
Here's hoping someone will make it work before it becomes abandonware, regardless of the illegality of it.
The no chat channels thing is definitely annoying to many. Personally I never had much use for them. All of the swearing and bickering that went on in those things always drove me away into my own personal chat areas that I'd use to setup games with friends. That functionality still exists in the party system and private chat still definitely exists although it's more of a instant messaging format. It still does the same thing and has the same purpose.
It's down for maintenance because it's a beta and betas screw up and highlight problems. It's meant to be there to be broken and it has broken quite a few times. If this happens when the game comes out it WILL be a disaster but until then it's just a beta. Missing and broken stuff is par for the course. You should have seen the FreeSpace 2 beta...
Facebook integration is actually kind of cool for me. Not everyone may find it useful but I like including social media into the mix.
What I do lament is the loss of LAN... I can see why people want it and I will miss it. I'll still be able to setup games the way I want them to so I don't have a huge persona loss but I see the loss there.
-
Its a lot harder to set up a party though...like really hard. Yeah, it works once you have the people on your friend's list, but getting them there is an aggravating ordeal. You either have to have played them, or know their email.
When I tried, the Real ID system wasn't working (so even knowing their email was useless) so I had to luck out and join the right game on the right map so I would have played with the people once so I can go right click to add friend :<
The system is still on and off. Friend requests just mysteriously disappear even though it said that it was sent. Yeah, its a beta, but really, if they had public chat channels, finding someone wouldn't be such a daunting task, IMO.
The most important aspect of loss of LAN is probably because they're only doing to try to stop piracy. I'm pretty sure that it'd just have the opposite effect. Someone will make a third party crack that enables LAN anyway - the only people this hurts are the people buying the game. They're not letting paying customers enjoy near a latency-free play environment, while them pirates will probably get it anyway.
This youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-r_uCaFxg8) pretty much sums up the majority of people's concerns nicely.
-
What's so hard about forming a party? My brother and cousin and a couple of my friends play. When they are on I message them and then send them a party request. The party get's formed and we go on to play some quick match games. Seems easy :)
The friends list has definitely been funky since the start but it's been slowly coming together. Again... beta so I expect that sort of thing.
-
Even if it does release in it's current, gimped form, it's entirely possible that they patch in the useful things later on. I'm really hoping for LAN play at some point for my family.
-
I think the loss of LAN is the big negative factor for me. I grew to like lots of RTS games including the original Starcraft through LAN play because of that low latency. And our country's internet sucks. We're only starting to have good broadband here.
It's too bad, since Starcraft 2 (at least the beta) is pretty good.
*remembers playing multiplayer Freespace 1 through a 28.8k modem* one second I was like 3 km away from that Demon class destroyer... 3 seconds later I'm suddenly on top of it.
-
Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 both have no LAN? SC and Diablo 2 were some of my most played lan games so this feels like a kick in the teeth. Hopefully this will be rectified before final release or perhaps in a patch at a later date.
-
Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 both have no LAN? SC and Diablo 2 were some of my most played lan games so this feels like a kick in the teeth. Hopefully this will be rectified before final release or perhaps in a patch at a later date.
Well, to my understanding there is no way for that. Take Modern Warfare 2 for example.
-
What's so hard about forming a party? My brother and cousin and a couple of my friends play. When they are on I message them and then send them a party request. The party get's formed and we go on to play some quick match games. Seems easy :)
The friends list has definitely been funky since the start but it's been slowly coming together. Again... beta so I expect that sort of thing.
Once you get them on your friends list its easy.
Getting them there in the first place is a pain. Maybe they're trying to force people to use the lesser-used features like email/facebook adding, cause TBH, the identifier system was a lot better than what they have now.
Yeah, the games great. I love it. Except that the multiplayer experience is pretty gimped without LAN or cross-realm play. (short of buying another copy :<)
-
In related news, Darth Kotick (http://i50.tinypic.com/21c5pxl.jpg) has come up with a plan to attract indie developers to make games for Activision (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/28813/Activision_Announces_Independent_Games_Competition.php).
I could say something, but Admiral Ackbar can say the same thing better:
(http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/410/ackbaru.jpg)
-
That...can't be good.
-
Arise!
So, anyone been paying attention to the RealID flap? Yeah, okay, I'm convinced now. I'm also somewhat concerned, because while I don't play WoW and don't intend to, I will be playing SC2, and it now seems entirely possible that these mother****ers are going to make telling people my real name a, um, requirement. At which point I guess I'll stop playing.
Because it seems likely we're only seeing the first steps in what is an attempt to get in on Facebook's action. An attempt to get the Farmville crowd into WoW, and, well, Activision as a whole. At this point I'm expecting WoW, MW3, SC2 and so on to all use RealID in an integrated network.
-
Jesus. How the mighty have fallen. :(
There is zero question in my mind that Activision is involved in this.
-
Hearsay--and I stress hearsay--is that basically all the Blizzard folks are pissed, and have been told in no uncertain terms that while they're free to do whatever the hell they want with their gameplay, Battle.net and the acquisition of new players is entirely in Activision's hands now.
-
To continue here: After the internet hate machine stepped into the gap (Finding the details of a bunch of Blizz-activision employees and posting them under the same kinda requirements that B/A was wanting to introduce), Blizz-Activision capitulated on that, and have removed the plans for that, but have warned in a rather stiffly-worded post that they intend to find other ways to excercise control over their forums.
So, one disaster averted, but perhaps another crisis looms in the near future.
-
Remember when games were about having a fun time?
Why does it seem like the developers/publishers are trying their hardest to make it... less fun...?
I was going to say something else but then I clicked on that youtube link that showed all those cute little kittens in a sink and forgot what it was about.
Edit: Wow, after reading only half of the article in the first post, I'm already raging like the fist of the mother****ingnorthstar
Kotick noted that in the past he changed the employee incentive program so that it "really rewards profit and nothing else." He continued, "You have studio heads who five years ago didn't know the difference between a balance sheet and a bed sheet who are now arguing allocations in our CFO's office pretty regularly. ... We have a real culture of thrift. 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."
Fffuuuuuu- why is this piece of trash in charge? I'm more and more hoping the game industry will just come crashing down and that only people that like to make fun games for fun will be the people that emerge from its rubble