Outward, This game came out of thin air. In fact so fast IGN or Game Spot haven't even reviewed it. Yet at least twenty reviews are made on youtube, this is not to mention hundreds of how to plays and tips and tricks.... Game hit like a ton of bricks !
"Influencers", anyone?
I'll be more surprised if people reviewed games without influence from publishers and/or cash for reviews from influencer campaigns.
Outward, This game came out of thin air. In fact so fast IGN or Game Spot haven't even reviewed it. Yet at least twenty reviews are made on youtube, this is not to mention hundreds of how to plays and tips and tricks.... Game hit like a ton of bricks !
"Influencers", anyone?
I'll be more surprised if people reviewed games without influence from publishers and/or cash for reviews from influencer campaigns.
I would say majority of youtube are independent creator. Most don't get money from game studio. They make money from advertising on youtube. So they don't really care if they say good or bad thing about games. Infact many get their views by bashing games.
I would say majority of youtube are independent creator. Most don't get money from game studio. They make money from advertising on youtube. So they don't really care if they say good or bad thing about games. Infact many get their views by bashing games.
While most YouTubers are independent creators, the influencers are not.
Some game studios have influencer programs to PROMOTE their games, even.
Gamebreaker.TV was like that, and their reviews of games were so scripted and influenced by studios it was sick. Lore (WoW's controversial CM) came from Gamebreaker, even. Perfect role he's in now, because he always was in Blizzard's back pocket then.
For years people claimed Blizzard had no influence on third party sites (oh, they wanted to distance themselves from IGE [the video game gold seller company operated by the now Alt-Right Steve Bannon and crew] with Wowhead. We learned that was an outright lie, when the WoW Warlock dev was actively posting on MMOC under a pen name (MMO-C knew he was a dev, yet if you said so, you would be scrapbotted [moderated] for "promoting" "conspiracy theories"). Wowhead these days is now officially headed by a Blizzard employee. Things people knew by how they ran sites as influencers, by their moderation practices (Blizzard is a very thin skinned and controlling enterprise). It's also how we know addons that break WoW, for example, aren't broken by developers and even promoted on the front page of Wowhead, too (Raid.io for example -- that's about as official you can get, other than a Blue post itself).
There's a lot of junk like that out there. Just like with MMO-C, we just don't have evidence in hand to expose them. But we know by their behaviors and actions, otherwise (you don't make reviews like this simply out of malice, you make them because of what you experienced first hand)...
(Snicker ... oh, they were the dirtest of the lot. The emails I have from that site are fit for a drama site, and I cry no tears that Gamebreaker is gone).
People are sick of that junk. Indie or AAA (and Indie companies are even worse in the PR department).
Outward, This game came out of thin air. In fact so fast IGN or Game Spot haven't even reviewed it. Yet at least twenty reviews are made on youtube, this is not to mention hundreds of how to plays and tips and tricks.... Game hit like a ton of bricks !
"Influencers", anyone?
I'll be more surprised if people reviewed games without influence from publishers and/or cash for reviews from influencer campaigns.
I would say majority of youtube are independent creator. Most don't get money from game studio. They make money from advertising on youtube. So they don't really care if they say good or bad thing about games. Infact many get their views by bashing games.
The majority are independent, but INFLUENCERS are not. Some game companies actually have influencer programs specifically to promote their games. Thus, my comment of why x-amount were already on YouTube posting reviews of an otherwise unknown game.
It's because only indies are taking risks and innovating.
Huge companies like Blizzard are all about releasing "safe" games high on polish, and very low on innovation and breaking new territory.
The downside of indie games - not enough money to polish and have the fancy graphics, animations and a ton of content and not enough money to market the living daylights out of their games - like major companies with 100million+ marketing budgets.
best thing about blizzard, they polish the shit out of their games
no game feels like playing a blizz game, engine wise at least
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
It's because only indies are taking risks and innovating.
Huge companies like Blizzard are all about releasing "safe" games high on polish, and very low on innovation and breaking new territory.
The downside of indie games - not enough money to polish and have the fancy graphics, animations and a ton of content and not enough money to market the living daylights out of their games - like major companies with 100million+ marketing budgets.
It is why i always thought of blizzard as sellouts and other than starcraft, dont play their games
Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
The blind Blizzard hatred is always entertaining to read.
They inspired dozens of RTS games with Warcraft, same for Diablo for ARPGS, they massively improved on all existing MMORPGS with WoW and introduced tons of new features. And now they also created milestones in the FPS genre with Overwatch and card games with Hearthstone.
Not to mention they created worlds and lore that inspired dozens of books and third party content, and even movies.
Those are facts.
But after the Activision "merger" take over more like they have changed. I stand by what I have always said, don't have favourite and hated gaming studios, look at each game as it comes, wait for the reviews, make your decision.
It's because only indies are taking risks and innovating.
Huge companies like Blizzard are all about releasing "safe" games high on polish, and very low on innovation and breaking new territory.
The downside of indie games - not enough money to polish and have the fancy graphics, animations and a ton of content and not enough money to market the living daylights out of their games - like major companies with 100million+ marketing budgets.
Amazingly I think the compliment of 'high on polish' is even suspect at this point. I don't even need to rattle off recent examples.
best thing about blizzard, they polish the shit out of their games
no game feels like playing a blizz game, engine wise at least
That hasn't been true for over 6 years.
These days Blizzard games come out of PTR as broken and bug filled as any other game, with the frustration of players who claimed to have reported the bugs while on the PTR.
The Dream Paragon exploitation SNAFU, showed the PTR is even used to test for exploits by world first guilds (all those world first guilds KNEW about the exploit, none reported it). Blizzard doesn't even ban like they did in WotLK (DP members that exploited, only got a two week suspension). Today if a world first guild used saronite bombs, they'd just get a slap on the hand.
Whatever company Blizzard was, that doesn't exist anymore. The New WoW has new management and Activision has more influence (i.e., money matters more than quality).
Well, I have said it before, and I'll say it again.
A Game company needs to find their demographic and target them, target the hell out of them. Focus on providing that demographic the best game they could want, and will enjoy playing, and if anyone else opts to play, they can join, but, the game will not change for them.
Large companies won't do this, so they make these mediocre games that try to throw as large a net as possible, and bend to the whims of their loudest critics.
Indie companies, like Pantheon, can keep their vision in spite of their critics.
What you're missing is that the "Large companies won't do this..." is wrong. They DO. What you're negelecting to see is that even AAA are serving a demorgraphic. It just happens to be a very large demographic constituted by millions of gamers. There're many groups of players with many different sizes. They're not equal sizes. Some are obscenely large and some are very small.
The people who like WoW, for example, versus people who like a different MMORPG, are a demographic. What's tricky is figuring out what exactly defines it. For example, on steam there're many tags to help defined games, like: 4x, strategy, simulation, tactical, rpg, open world, survival, sports, adventure, massively multiplayer, casual, action, racing, co-op, sandbox, multiplayer, management, building, fantasy, rts, fps, first person, third person, platformer, hack and slash, walking simulator, puzzle, historical, sci-fi, space, jrpg, crafting, military, turn-based, singleplayer, rogue-like, medieval and more. The job of any company is to figure out some of these definitions so they know how to create for their demographic.
I was never attracted much to WoW. I didn't like the cartoonish art and didn't like hte reduction of death penalty. I think WoW appeals to people who like stylized art and a more casual gameplay.
And judging by the dislike for cash shops by some of the posters here, steam needs a "cash shop" or "p2w" tag for MMORPGs.
Tags, or subgenre/genre information, are good. IF it's honest.
Overwatch was after the merger right ? And I think so was Heathstone.
I've hundreds of hours played in OW and I had a blast. And that game has not any kind of "pay to win" cash shop, just the purchase price.
I've also hundreds of hours in "post merger" WoW, and while my favorite time ever in that game is WotLK, I still had a lot of fun in subsequent expansions.
I'm not a big fan of modern Activision at all, but Blizzard still creates pretty damn good games.
Yes, it came long after the merger (2008).
Overwatch was the left over assets of the cancelled Titan project Blizzard was working on during the Cata/MoP expansion years.
Overwatch was what WoW couldn't be -- Blizzard's cash shop game (that was what it was designed for). Since the industry moved on from the predictability of the cash shop to RNG loot boxes, so has Overwatch.
The Overwatch cash shop and their insidious policy subtly nudging you to purchase was what eventually convinced me to delete the game. During an event I was getting costumes for all the characters I was not playing. While the days were passing and the end of the event was coming near, I was getting more and more costumes about my average played characters. Never my most played though. During the last day, the drops dried up completely.
These days Activision Blizzard is using full on their psychological manipulation algorithms, while at the same time creates a smokescreen of made up controversies about how virtuous they are (with the latest regarding the ok sign).
At least as far as I'm concerned, these days, they don't have a single "must play" game. Which means that they can go ahead and exploit to their hearts desire the ripe mobile market.
Was is? Because I never ever felt the
urge to buy any cash shop box in OW. It's 100% cosmetics, and you can
earn the items by playing too.
Because WoW wasn't designed around a cash shop, it was designed around a buy expansion/subscription model. But even that is changing as Blizzard itemizes WoW FOR monetization via the WoW token (they already trashed professions as a means to make gold; and limited gold drops ingame so people can't "play for free").
That is why they were working on Titan (which was suppose to be like WoW2, but monetized throughout). For whatever reason that didn't pan out, so Blizzard reused the Titan assets and that became Overwatch with it's lootbox system.
WoW players were eager for a WoW2, but once we learned that it was a cash shop like game, interest sunk like a 12 ton stone. I refuse to play any other Blizzard product that has loot boxes. No promos or other "try for free" junk do I care for (and proves they KNOW it's addict producing, with promos of "free" loot boxes to "try", too. Worse, they even tie in FREE MOUNTS to try to get WoW players to buy into that junk).
The blind Blizzard hatred is always entertaining to read.
They inspired dozens of RTS games with Warcraft, same for Diablo for ARPGS, they massively improved on all existing MMORPGS with WoW and introduced tons of new features. And now they also created milestones in the FPS genre with Overwatch and card games with Hearthstone.
Not to mention they created worlds and lore that inspired dozens of books and third party content, and even movies.
Those are facts.
But after the Activision "merger" take over more like they have changed. I stand by what I have always said, don't have favourite and hated gaming studios, look at each game as it comes, wait for the reviews, make your decision.
Overwatch was after the merger right ? And I think so was Heathstone.
I've hundreds of hours played in OW and I had a blast. And that game has not any kind of "pay to win" cash shop, just the purchase price.
I've also hundreds of hours in "post merger" WoW, and while my favorite time ever in that game is WotLK, I still had a lot of fun in subsequent expansions.
I'm not a big fan of modern Activision at all, but Blizzard still creates pretty damn good games.
The rot did not set in right away, the number of directors leaving over the last 12 months tells its own story.
The blind Blizzard hatred is always entertaining to read.
They inspired dozens of RTS games with Warcraft, same for Diablo for ARPGS, they massively improved on all existing MMORPGS with WoW and introduced tons of new features. And now they also created milestones in the FPS genre with Overwatch and card games with Hearthstone.
Not to mention they created worlds and lore that inspired dozens of books and third party content, and even movies.
Those are facts.
But after the Activision "merger" take over more like they have changed. I stand by what I have always said, don't have favourite and hated gaming studios, look at each game as it comes, wait for the reviews, make your decision.
Overwatch was after the merger right ? And I think so was Heathstone.
I've hundreds of hours played in OW and I had a blast. And that game has not any kind of "pay to win" cash shop, just the purchase price.
I've also hundreds of hours in "post merger" WoW, and while my favorite time ever in that game is WotLK, I still had a lot of fun in subsequent expansions.
I'm not a big fan of modern Activision at all, but Blizzard still creates pretty damn good games.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Overwatch was after the merger right ? And I think so was Heathstone.
I've hundreds of hours played in OW and I had a blast. And that game has not any kind of "pay to win" cash shop, just the purchase price.
I've also hundreds of hours in "post merger" WoW, and while my favorite time ever in that game is WotLK, I still had a lot of fun in subsequent expansions.
I'm not a big fan of modern Activision at all, but Blizzard still creates pretty damn good games.
Yes, it came long after the merger (2008).
Overwatch was the left over assets of the cancelled Titan project Blizzard was working on during the Cata/MoP expansion years.
Overwatch was what WoW couldn't be -- Blizzard's cash shop game (that was what it was designed for). Since the industry moved on from the predictability of the cash shop to RNG loot boxes, so has Overwatch.
Was is? Because I never ever felt the urge to buy any cash shop box in OW. It's 100% cosmetics, and you can earn the items by playing too.
I'd have labeled Hearthstone as their cash shop game, since you can definitely "pay to win" in that game... and that's the reason I'm not playing it.
The blind Blizzard hatred is always entertaining to read.
They inspired dozens of RTS games with Warcraft, same for Diablo for ARPGS, they massively improved on all existing MMORPGS with WoW and introduced tons of new features. And now they also created milestones in the FPS genre with Overwatch and card games with Hearthstone.
Not to mention they created worlds and lore that inspired dozens of books and third party content, and even movies.
Those are facts.
But after the Activision "merger" take over more like they have changed. I stand by what I have always said, don't have favourite and hated gaming studios, look at each game as it comes, wait for the reviews, make your decision.
Overwatch was after the merger right ? And I think so was Heathstone.
I've hundreds of hours played in OW and I had a blast. And that game has not any kind of "pay to win" cash shop, just the purchase price.
I've also hundreds of hours in "post merger" WoW, and while my favorite time ever in that game is WotLK, I still had a lot of fun in subsequent expansions.
I'm not a big fan of modern Activision at all, but Blizzard still creates pretty damn good games.
------------------------------------------------------------ It wasn't the "merger" it was the "buy-out".
The "merger" happened when Vivendi, who had owned Blizzard for a while along with some other gaming stuff, buying Activision and putting all their gaming assets together in a new company called Activision Blizzard. The Activision CEO became the CEO of AB, the head of Blizzard became the deputy CEO.
The new company, Activision Blizzard, reported to Vivendi. For years though Blizzard had reported directly to Vivendi .... I for one always got the impression that those lines of communication remained. Blizzard certainly gave the impression that nothing had changed.
Then Activision Blizzard bought themselves out from Vivendi. From that point the board was independent. They had shareholders to impress. They had a huge loan, taken out to buy themselves out, to repay. At that point e.g. investors were told that the next WoW expansion would release in 12 months (or whenever it was). And in 12 months it duly released, with more bugs than one was used to. No longer was it "done when its done".
(And I agree that whilst Blizzard were "independent" they did a lot of good).
The blind Blizzard hatred is always entertaining to read.
They inspired dozens of RTS games with Warcraft, same for Diablo for ARPGS, they massively improved on all existing MMORPGS with WoW and introduced tons of new features. And now they also created milestones in the FPS genre with Overwatch and card games with Hearthstone.
Not to mention they created worlds and lore that inspired dozens of books and third party content, and even movies.
Those are facts.
But after the Activision "merger" take over more like they have changed. I stand by what I have always said, don't have favourite and hated gaming studios, look at each game as it comes, wait for the reviews, make your decision.
Overwatch was after the merger right ? And I think so was Heathstone.
I've hundreds of hours played in OW and I had a blast. And that game has not any kind of "pay to win" cash shop, just the purchase price.
I've also hundreds of hours in "post merger" WoW, and while my favorite time ever in that game is WotLK, I still had a lot of fun in subsequent expansions.
I'm not a big fan of modern Activision at all, but Blizzard still creates pretty damn good games.
"Created good games," past tense.
What have they done lately?
Ahh, I know, milk their customers.
Overwatch, absolutely no need for the cash shop.
You could be playing for free since release without being handicapped by anything other than your skill.
And good games with high production quality take time to make. Blizzard's rule has always been "when it's ready", unlike all those indies who try to sell you access to their early alpha crap game. When Blizzard sells a pre-order, the game is already almost finished and people are able to try it in open beta before they pay a single cent.
THAT is the difference between a true AAA studio and Indie "grab your money" companies.
I guess, coming up on 3 years since launch.
As much money as they make their pipeline is a bit light IMO.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Everything but Starcraft and Diablo was after the Activision-Blizzard merger in 2008.
Hearthstone (2014)
Heroes of the Storm (2015)
Overwatch (2016)
The Vivendi buyout (not merger) happened on July 25, 2013 (MoP expansion time) when they bought Vivendi shares ... in cash.
Fixed the quote.
When I did some checking I also came across this on Wiki as well: "While Blizzard retained its autonomy and corporate leadership in the merger, other Vivendi Games divisions such as Sierra ceased operation"
I hadn't realise that Blizzard's "independence" was actually baked into the merger.
Either way as I said and as @Kevyne-Shandris expanded on there were 2 very distinct events: the merger and the buy-out.
The blind Blizzard hatred is always entertaining to read.
They inspired dozens of RTS games with Warcraft, same for Diablo for ARPGS, they massively improved on all existing MMORPGS with WoW and introduced tons of new features. And now they also created milestones in the FPS genre with Overwatch and card games with Hearthstone.
Not to mention they created worlds and lore that inspired dozens of books and third party content, and even movies.
Those are facts.
I'm not sure how "factual" that is. I know of one opinion sneaked in there: "they massively improved on all existing MMORPGS with WoW..."
"Improved" is a subjective word, not objective. Many disagree with that opinion.
RTS games existed long before Warcraft: Orcs and Humans and Starcraft. Those games may have refined the genre a bit and maybe even "inspired" some games, but "facts?" The same with Hearthstone and Overwatch, though both games did very well.
Are these facts? Can one prove this?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
You didn't even read what I was saying but you answered... totally out of context.
No. I did read what you wrote and even quoted you. But this is a general MMO board, not the Blizzard forums. People who don't play in Blizzard's walled garden may not know the background of WHY Overwatch even became Overwatch.
Overwatch reused Titan assets. That was where Blizzard was going with WoW2 with the Path of Titans. That YOU don't feel the need to buy anything ... well, do read that WoW thread on the Water Strider, because it's not going to stay only in WoW.
They don't want YOU anymore because you don't pay up. They want players willing to pay the CoD tier rates.
Well, I have said it before, and I'll say it again.
A Game company needs to find their demographic and target them, target the hell out of them. Focus on providing that demographic the best game they could want, and will enjoy playing, and if anyone else opts to play, they can join, but, the game will not change for them.
Large companies won't do this, so they make these mediocre games that try to throw as large a net as possible, and bend to the whims of their loudest critics.
Indie companies, like Pantheon, can keep their vision in spite of their critics.
What you're missing is that the "Large companies won't do this..." is wrong. They DO. What you're negelecting to see is that even AAA are serving a demorgraphic. It just happens to be a very large demographic constituted by millions of gamers. There're many groups of players with many different sizes. They're not equal sizes. Some are obscenely large and some are very small.
The people who like WoW, for example, versus people who like a different MMORPG, are a demographic. What's tricky is figuring out what exactly defines it. For example, on steam there're many tags to help defined games, like: 4x, strategy, simulation, tactical, rpg, open world, survival, sports, adventure, massively multiplayer, casual, action, racing, co-op, sandbox, multiplayer, management, building, fantasy, rts, fps, first person, third person, platformer, hack and slash, walking simulator, puzzle, historical, sci-fi, space, jrpg, crafting, military, turn-based, singleplayer, rogue-like, medieval and more. The job of any company is to figure out some of these definitions so they know how to create for their demographic.
I was never attracted much to WoW. I didn't like the cartoonish art and didn't like hte reduction of death penalty. I think WoW appeals to people who like stylized art and a more casual gameplay.
And judging by the dislike for cash shops by some of the posters here, steam needs a "cash shop" or "p2w" tag for MMORPGs.
Tags, or subgenre/genre information, are good. IF it's honest.
We are going to disagree, as a demographic, is a specific group of people that can be categorized in a meaningful way.
The main point of this, is the Meaningful Way, as such, the more ambiguous or broad base the demographic the less meaning it provides and less you can target it effectively.
Let's use your example of players that like Stylized Art, like what WoW provides. You could claim this is a Demographic.
Ok, lets go with that idea that stylized art is a Demographic, so now the question becomes, can you do anything in regards to building a game with this Demographic as a target, now to understand that, the real question is, Can you come up with something that will target this demographic as a whole?
Obviously not. Because there is nothing outside the art that unifies them, as such, there is no meaningful way to use this as a Demographic.
This is the foundation of my point that Large Companies do not find their demographic, as we all know when it comes to Large Company MMO's, well, their demographic target is "Anyone that might like to play a game" .. you can try to deny this, but this is the truth. In this being their target, they end up tossing out anything and everything to collect as many people among that demographic as they can, building conflicting even contradictory elements in their game, just to try and collect more of this obscure player base.
We see this as well with games changing over the course of time, often just outright experimenting with whatever they can shove into the game to just get anyone that will play a game to play their game.
The reason why this happens is that they do not have a meaningful demographic in mind with their game creation, they just want everyone and anyone they can get.
Ideally, those that will spend money.
Which is also not a meaningful demographic to use to design a game, even if a somewhat needed one.
So, what happens.
Well, Indie companies build in reverse. First they Find their Market: They divide down the Demographics down to a meaningful manner and design for that market, because they have something meaningful to build from. A Target they can address.
Sure.. you could call "Humans that play games" a demographic, with the goal to make a game to get as many of them as possible and claim you are targeting a demographic.. but let's be real.. you're not really targeting a demographic.. you're just trying to get anyone you can to spend money on your game.
Which is what large companies try to do.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Comments
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
no game feels like playing a blizz game, engine wise at least
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
But in general, yes I agree.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
These days Activision Blizzard is using full on their psychological manipulation algorithms, while at the same time creates a smokescreen of made up controversies about how virtuous they are (with the latest regarding the ok sign).
At least as far as I'm concerned, these days, they don't have a single "must play" game. Which means that they can go ahead and exploit to their hearts desire the ripe mobile market.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
What have they done lately?
Ahh, I know, milk their customers.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
------------------------------------------------------------
It wasn't the "merger" it was the "buy-out".
The "merger" happened when Vivendi, who had owned Blizzard for a while along with some other gaming stuff, buying Activision and putting all their gaming assets together in a new company called Activision Blizzard. The Activision CEO became the CEO of AB, the head of Blizzard became the deputy CEO.
The new company, Activision Blizzard, reported to Vivendi. For years though Blizzard had reported directly to Vivendi .... I for one always got the impression that those lines of communication remained. Blizzard certainly gave the impression that nothing had changed.
Then Activision Blizzard bought themselves out from Vivendi. From that point the board was independent. They had shareholders to impress. They had a huge loan, taken out to buy themselves out, to repay. At that point e.g. investors were told that the next WoW expansion would release in 12 months (or whenever it was). And in 12 months it duly released, with more bugs than one was used to. No longer was it "done when its done".
(And I agree that whilst Blizzard were "independent" they did a lot of good).
As much money as they make their pipeline is a bit light IMO.
Several retreads of course like WOW classic.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
When I did some checking I also came across this on Wiki as well: "While Blizzard retained its autonomy and corporate leadership in the merger, other Vivendi Games divisions such as Sierra ceased operation"
I hadn't realise that Blizzard's "independence" was actually baked into the merger.
Either way as I said and as @Kevyne-Shandris expanded on there were 2 very distinct events: the merger and the buy-out.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
"they massively improved on all existing MMORPGS with WoW..."
"Improved" is a subjective word, not objective. Many disagree with that opinion.
RTS games existed long before Warcraft: Orcs and Humans and Starcraft. Those games may have refined the genre a bit and maybe even "inspired" some games, but "facts?" The same with Hearthstone and Overwatch, though both games did very well.
Are these facts? Can one prove this?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.
We are going to disagree, as a demographic, is a specific group of people that can be categorized in a meaningful way.
The main point of this, is the Meaningful Way, as such, the more ambiguous or broad base the demographic the less meaning it provides and less you can target it effectively.
Let's use your example of players that like Stylized Art, like what WoW provides. You could claim this is a Demographic.
Ok, lets go with that idea that stylized art is a Demographic, so now the question becomes, can you do anything in regards to building a game with this Demographic as a target, now to understand that, the real question is, Can you come up with something that will target this demographic as a whole?
Obviously not. Because there is nothing outside the art that unifies them, as such, there is no meaningful way to use this as a Demographic.
This is the foundation of my point that Large Companies do not find their demographic, as we all know when it comes to Large Company MMO's, well, their demographic target is "Anyone that might like to play a game" .. you can try to deny this, but this is the truth. In this being their target, they end up tossing out anything and everything to collect as many people among that demographic as they can, building conflicting even contradictory elements in their game, just to try and collect more of this obscure player base.
We see this as well with games changing over the course of time, often just outright experimenting with whatever they can shove into the game to just get anyone that will play a game to play their game.
The reason why this happens is that they do not have a meaningful demographic in mind with their game creation, they just want everyone and anyone they can get.
Ideally, those that will spend money.
Which is also not a meaningful demographic to use to design a game, even if a somewhat needed one.
So, what happens.
Well, Indie companies build in reverse. First they Find their Market: They divide down the Demographics down to a meaningful manner and design for that market, because they have something meaningful to build from. A Target they can address.
Sure.. you could call "Humans that play games" a demographic, with the goal to make a game to get as many of them as possible and claim you are targeting a demographic.. but let's be real.. you're not really targeting a demographic.. you're just trying to get anyone you can to spend money on your game.
Which is what large companies try to do.
They wildly succeeded, at least for a time, but like all good things, it eventually came to an end.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon