StarCraft II delayed

[Robert Maxwell]

It's kind of sad that their reputation is built on fanaticism and anticipation rather than good old fashioned game making. Everything they make is shit, yet people still buy their games that take 15 years to make.

Wait, what? I'm no Blizzard fanboy, but they happen to make rather good games that hold up over time. People still play Starcraft, Diablo II, and the Warcraft games. Not to mention, they have WoW to their credit.

You may not like the games they make (I don't care for WoW, myself) but they must be doing something right, having revenues of over a billion dollars a year.

 

[Trubinator]

Can you really name any other company that has decade old computer games still priced at $40? I mean, they've made all of about five games and are releasing a sequel to their RTS favorite 12 years after it came out. Any other company would have to be releasing a stream of products to keep the level of buzz going about, but oh no, not them!

Also look at WoW. They spent something like $200 million on that game and its main competitor (Everquest 2) has had about 10 times the number of expansions and 100s more times the level of frequent content updates. Yet they still slither by with huge sales. How do you explain that other than fanatic, long-term Blizzardites?

 

[Kelthaz]

How do you explain that other than fanatic, long-term Blizzardites?

How about their games are great?

 

[Trubinator]

Maybe that's true for a lot of people. But it's hard to attribute that as the sole cause of their success when you consider that MANY other great games are released every year, and none of them attract the same kind of cultist, enduring fanbase. Are you really going to say that Blizzard makes better games (in every case) than any other developer in history?

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Can you really name any other company that has decade old computer games still priced at $40? I mean, they've made all of about five games and are releasing a sequel to their RTS favorite 12 years after it came out. Any other company would have to be releasing a stream of products to keep the level of buzz going about, but oh no, not them!

Also look at WoW. They spent something like $200 million on that game and its main competitor (Everquest 2) has had about 10 times the number of expansions and 100s more times the level of frequent content updates. Yet they still slither by with huge sales. How do you explain that other than fanatic, long-term Blizzardites?

Er, they've done more games than that:

• The Lost Vikings (2 games)
• Blackthorne
• Warcraft (3 games, plus WoW)
• Starcraft (1 in progress)
• Diablo (2 games, 1 in progress)

They also did several Amiga ports of popular titles, back in the day. Granted, their library isn't huge, but I'd rather a company focus on making a handful of great games than churn out crap year after year.

I'm sorry, people aren't compelled to buy garbage out of some sense of loyalty. People buy their games because they're actually good. There is a lot of competition in the MMO space, and Blizzard doesn't dominate it because of a hardcore fanbase. Hardcore fans simply aren't numerous enough to make that possible. They appeal to both casual and hardcore gamers.

And there's still positive word-of-mouth about their other games, years later, and that's why they can still charge what they do for the games. There's no rule that says you must drop a game to $10 after so many years. Lesser titles have to do this. Blizzard does not.

 

[Arrqh]

Can you really name any other company that has decade old computer games still priced at $40? I mean, they've made all of about five games and are releasing a sequel to their RTS favorite 12 years after it came out. Any other company would have to be releasing a stream of products to keep the level of buzz going about, but oh no, not them!

So like... you hate them because they're popular? Because that really seems to be the only point you have. But there's quite a few companies that behave the same way Blizzard does... Valve and iD to name a few... and they all do so because they can afford to because their products have sold so well. Complaining about the price point of old games is a really silly thing to do, but even then the only thing that matters to Blizzard is are they making enough profit on them... and clearly they are, or they would drop the price to entice more sales. Because games are a business and clearly Blizzard's business model is working for them.

Also look at WoW. They spent something like $200 million on that game and its main competitor (Everquest 2) has had about 10 times the number of expansions and 100s more times the level of frequent content updates. Yet they still slither by with huge sales. How do you explain that other than fanatic, long-term Blizzardites?

Do you believe that number of expansions and content updates are the only deliminators for what people like in an MMO? WoW in many ways represents the currently lowest common denominator for MMOs right now. It's easy, fun and accessable. And those are far more important to a successful game then content updates.

 

[Trubinator]

I just don't see the point. The closest example I can think of in my own experience is BioWare. But I only trust them because they have a history of churning out the highest quality, wonderful RPGs in the market; very few question them. But in Blizzard's case, I don't really see what makes their games special. They just seem like mindless knockoffs of other games really. And on point #2, MMOs should live and die by how much content they provide, otherwise they shouldn't have monthly fees. If I play an MMORPG, I had damn well better get my money's worth. Finally, just because a company is successful, doesn't mean they are deserving of it.

 

[Rii]

It's kind of sad that their reputation is built on fanaticism and anticipation rather than good old fashioned game making.

Yeah, that would be sad if it were true, which it isn't.

 

[JonathonWally]

I just don't see the point. The closest example I can think of in my own experience is BioWare. But I only trust them because they have a history of churning out the highest quality, wonderful RPGs in the market; very few question them.

I don't get what you're arguing. You don't like Blizzard games so you're writing them off as crap? And that people only like them because they're fanatics?

 

[Trubinator]

I think maybe it's best to just move to another talking point before things get out of hand. I still think a seven year development cycle is ludicrous for a simple RTS though.

 

[JonathonWally]

I still think a seven year development cycle is ludicrous for a simple RTS though.

Well, by the time Mass Effect 3 comes out from your referenced developer BioWare, that too will have been a 6-7 development cycle.

In the software business I guess you have two choices,

Take your time and release epic games, ID's Doom 3, Valve's HL2, Blizz SC2

Or be someone like Neversoft and spit up crap like Tony Hawk twice a year.

 

[Trubinator]

Mass Effect took about 3-4 years, I think. The sequel will have been released within three years of the original as well. That's a lot more forgivable, especially considering that the first one had more depth and complexity (story wise) than many games out there. I did enjoy Doom 3 and hated the Tony Hawk games though, so I suppose we at least agree on that.

 

[Arrqh]

Well, by the time Mass Effect 3 comes out from your referenced developer BioWare, that too will have been a 6-7 development cycle.

Not the best example, as there'll be 3 games in the series in that time.

Now Dragon Age on the other hand...

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Mass Effect took about 3-4 years, I think. The sequel will have been released within three years of the original as well. That's a lot more forgivable, especially considering that the first one had more depth and complexity (story wise) than many games out there. I did enjoy Doom 3 and hated the Tony Hawk games though, so I suppose we at least agree on that.

As someone who works in the software industry, predicting how long something will take to implement simply isn't easy, and is often not even possible. How long it takes to develop a game isn't really relevant, all that matters is whether the game is good.

In the case of StarCraft II, they are essentially developing three games at once, which understandably lengthens the cycle time.

Building hype can certainly backfire--there's plenty of examples of that, from Daikatana to Duke Nukem Forever--but the gaming public is very forgiving of a long dev cycle if the final product happens to be worth the wait.

I would much rather have a development team spend an extra 6-18 months making sure the game is in good shape before sending it out the door, than doing what a lot of companies do and live by a mantra of "publish and patch." Do we really want to revisit the days of games that were shipped in unplayable condition, or had bugs that made them impossible to beat?

Blizzard is in a comfortable spot and they can take all the time they need. As long as a good game comes out of it in the end, I don't see the problem.

 

[WeAreTheBorg]

Read the link. An Activision-Blizzard rep himself says they are "moving the expected release date" If they are moving an expected date that means two things.

1-That a date HAD been set and

2-That a new date is being currently set

That could very well just have meant they were shooting for late 2009. Blizzard doesn't set dates in stone. I've learned never to expect a blizzard game till it's in front of my face.

No company sets a date in stone. if they did, then we would never have delays. Fact is though, Blizzard said the game would be released by a certain time and now they are going back on that. Personally I don really consider such a thing THAT big of a deal but lets not pretend like it didnt happen

Thats the thing though, unless someone shows me where they ever said it would be released in late 2009, I don't believe it happened. They might have been HOPING for that, but they would never say anything more concrete than that, I don't think.

 

[clint g]

That could very well just have meant they were shooting for late 2009. Blizzard doesn't set dates in stone. I've learned never to expect a blizzard game till it's in front of my face.

No company sets a date in stone. if they did, then we would never have delays. Fact is though, Blizzard said the game would be released by a certain time and now they are going back on that. Personally I don really consider such a thing THAT big of a deal but lets not pretend like it didnt happen

Thats the thing though, unless someone shows me where they ever said it would be released in late 2009, I don't believe it happened. They might have been HOPING for that, but they would never say anything more concrete than that, I don't think.

Its stated in the link provided up thread. But here's another one if you'd like

http://starcraft.incgamers.com/blog/comments/starcraft-2-release-date-officially-slated-late-2009/

“We’re targeting an end of year release—this year—for StarCraft 2, but as always, we won’t release it until it meets our standards and the expectations of our players.”

EDIT: Heres a link that predates that one by a month http://www.gamingnewslink.com/2008/02/09/starcraft-2-release-date-according-to-gamestop/

 

[JonathonWally]

No company sets a date in stone. if they did, then we would never have delays. Fact is though, Blizzard said the game would be released by a certain time and now they are going back on that. Personally I don really consider such a thing THAT big of a deal but lets not pretend like it didnt happen

Thats the thing though, unless someone shows me where they ever said it would be released in late 2009, I don't believe it happened. They might have been HOPING for that, but they would never say anything more concrete than that, I don't think.

Its stated in the link provided up thread. But here's another one if you'd like

http://starcraft.incgamers.com/blog/comments/starcraft-2-release-date-officially-slated-late-2009/

“We’re targeting an end of year release—this year—for StarCraft 2, but as always, we won’t release it until it meets our standards and the expectations of our players.”

EDIT: Heres a link that predates that one by a month http://www.gamingnewslink.com/2008/02/09/starcraft-2-release-date-according-to-gamestop/

See, to me that sounds more like an internal goal than an official announcement. But it could be just me, I'm very used to the "it'll come out when it's finished" stuff.

 

[clint g]

If it was an internal goal he wouldn't have announced it out loud to the gaming press at E3. Additionally, if it was simply an internal goal then they wouldn't have publicly announced yet again that they were moving the release date. Just because a company moves their release dates at will doesn't mean they aren't making such dates.

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

Also look at WoW. They spent something like $200 million on that game and its main competitor (Everquest 2) has had about 10 times the number of expansions and 100s more times the level of frequent content updates. Yet they still slither by with huge sales. How do you explain that other than fanatic, long-term Blizzardites?

Uhhhhh....

You do realize that massive patches that come out every once in a while for Blizzard? I mean I started playing WoW a few months ago (I think September) but they had huge patches like this recent one 3.1, had a LOT of content changes including adding in a whole new dungeon.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Also look at WoW. They spent something like $200 million on that game and its main competitor (Everquest 2) has had about 10 times the number of expansions and 100s more times the level of frequent content updates. Yet they still slither by with huge sales. How do you explain that other than fanatic, long-term Blizzardites?

Uhhhhh....

You do realize that massive patches that come out every once in a while for Blizzard? I mean I started playing WoW a few months ago (I think September) but they had huge patches like this recent one 3.1, had a LOT of content changes including adding in a whole new dungeon.

Yup. They update WoW a lot, as I learned the few times I had a subscription to it. There's more to it than expansions. They add new stuff via the (rather massive) updates, too.