Blizzard Entertainment

[Korgoth of Barbaria]

I think Diablo is one of the best games ever made. While Blizzard have done sequels to Diablo, they aren't the eclectic company they were in the 1990s. Everything about them is either WoW or online gaming for them. But when they've done so in the past, they've created cool content. I mean, The Lost Vikings, Blackthorne, Rock N' Roll Racing, Diablo...They had a great run. But everything is either expansions of WoW, Warcraft sequels, Diablo sequels or Starcraft sequels. Overwatch is an FPS, but it's also yet another online game.
Do you ever foresee Blizzard going back to being the cool, eclectic company they were in the '90s? And do you ever see them dying out due to the fact that the bulk of their business is Warcraft-centered, or can you see them being around in a 100 years?

 

[Stargazer_]

Bliz most likely gonna focus on online Skinner box games, because online Skinner box games sell. Look at how many people play games like diablo 3 and WoW just to see imaginary numbers go up for their characters, or look at hearth stone which rips out all the nuance of card games such as Magic or even Yu-Gi-oH
To give a bare-bones experience to nickle and dime players.

This was the path Blizzard took ever since releasing Diablo 2 in 2000 more focus more on games with online multiplayer.

Also Diablo was made by Blizzard North who are now ArenaNet another developer who makes generic Skinner box games.

 

[TripJack]

yeah Blizzard is definitely going back to how it was in the 90s, right after Interplay & id & 3d Realms do the same ya that's definitely happening

with everything being shit and all I don't see them going under any time soon, though the end can't come soon enough imo

 

[Gregz]

Also Diablo was made by Blizzard North who are now ArenaNet

 

[Jozoz]

Activi$ion will make sure Blizzard doesn't make another good game ever again.

 

[Korgoth of Barbaria]

Activi$ion will make sure Blizzard doesn't make another good game ever again.

Blizzard isn't a part of Activision. They're a merged company, neither can tell the other what to do.

 

[Trodat]

They have gone full casual and it's not going to get any better.

 

[toro]

They have gone full retard and it's not going to get any better.

 

[Neanderthal]

Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.

 

[Grubba]

They have gone full casual and it's not going to get any better.

Yup. They've decided that their whole philosophy is to take something that's a nerdy niche product (mmorpg, ccg, etc...) and make it accessible to the masses by dumbing it down and giving it a nice glossy coat of paint. They're not going to change course.

 

[Metro]

Activi$ion will make sure Blizzard doesn't make another good game ever again.

Blizzard isn't a part of Activision. They're a merged company, neither can tell the other what to do.

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[Jozoz]

Activi$ion will make sure Blizzard doesn't make another good game ever again.

Blizzard isn't a part of Activision. They're a merged company, neither can tell the other what to do.

I take it you haven't played the slot machine that is Hearthstone. It's just as luck based as a slot machine and it's even similar in how much it wants your money.

 

[Metro]

Hearthstone, HoTS, Overwatch, the latest WoW expansion that plays like a Facebook game... nope... no Activision influence at all!

 

[Rake]

Activi$ion will make sure Blizzard doesn't make another good game ever again.

Blizzard isn't a part of Activision. They're a merged company, neither can tell the other what to do.

Merged company means the same company. They have the same board of directors, same upper managment, same company direction. If the name above the door says, Activision, Blizzard, or ActivisionBlizzard are meaningless semantics

 

[Great Deceiver]

The only thing Blizzard does these days that's deserving of any respect is Starcraft 2 - it's still a pretty hardcore game that few people can master. It wasn't dumbed down, the campaign story is pretty awful but there are still some cool ideas even in the single player game. Of course, with RTS the campaign was always an appetizer for the actual meat of the game, multiplayer. I'm too old to get into it, but I can appreciate its depth.

The rest of current Blizzard games are uninspired, derivative, and casual. I don't think there's a substantive difference between them and Activision.

 

[Jozoz]

It's because they wanted Starcraft 2 to become a huge eSports title.

Now that they fucked that up, I'm sure they won't be making the same mistake again. To be honest I don't think we'll see a new Starcraft game for many many years.

 

[Renegen]

Activi$ion will make sure Blizzard doesn't make another good game ever again.

Blizzard isn't a part of Activision. They're a merged company, neither can tell the other what to do.

 

[GrainWetski]

It's because they wanted Starcraft 2 to become a huge eSports title.

Now that they fucked that up, I'm sure they won't be making the same mistake again. To be honest I don't think we'll see a new Starcraft game for many many years.

They definitely want Heroes of the Casuals to become an "eSports title" too and that shit is probably the most dumbed down game of the genre.

 

[Korgoth of Barbaria]

Keep telling yourself that.

Activision and Vivendi (which owned Blizzard) merged in 2008. Vivendi in around 2012 severed its ties and Activision-Blizzard got back all of Vivendi's shares. There is a common holding company, Activision-Blizzard, for both companies.

Activi$ion will make sure Blizzard doesn't make another good game ever again.

Blizzard isn't a part of Activision. They're a merged company, neither can tell the other what to do.

You figure in the combined company both the CEO of Activision and the CEO of Blizzard are on the board of directors, and both are also in the senior management in the combined company. Ever since Blizzard was first acquired by Davidson & Associates Inc. in 1994, they've had a grandfather clause in their contract from the original sale in which they have full creative autonomy. It's why for example Blizzard thrived while under Vivendi while Sierra died.

 

[racofer]

The Arcade in SC2 is reason enough to play it. Lots of fun shit in there.

 

[Korgoth of Barbaria]

After a successful 1994 acquisition by Davidson & Associates, an educational software company, Silicon & Synapse renamed itself as Blizzard Entertainment, after a brief foray with the title "Chaos Studios". Davidson allowed Blizzard to retain its creative autonomy by providing the development team free reign, a decision instrumental in not only allowing the acquisition to take place, but in safeguarding the fledgeling company from overzealous manipulation by its financial backers.

----------------------------------

In 1994, the company was sold to an education software company called Davidson & Associates. Public company, but majority owned by the Davidson family. They recognized that Blizzard knew what they were doing and would leave Blizzard full creative control while giving them access to their distribution systems, marketing, PR, etc.

Even though, through various mergers, they're now part of Vivendi, the initial deal with the Davidsons leaves them some autonomy.

 

[Korgoth of Barbaria]

From a discussion on Battle.net, the comments are by different people:

"I don't know, I actually have an old college friend who works for Activision, and according to him at least, Blizzard has total creative autonomy for their games. That's just one guy...but I think I'll trust him over some know-nothing on the forums."

"Total creative autonomy - yes absolutely.

The design teams are still 100% Blizzard, I live near the headquarters in anaheim and I have a good friend who works at Activision in L.A. (skylanders franchise), but he's introduced me around to a few people who say the same thing.

But that doesn't mean that the release date wasn't forced upon them for financial reasons causing them to release the multiplayer halfcocked to ensure a holiday release.

That part I do not know for sure, that's just speculation. But yes, absolutely they still have creative control. It's a financial partnership and blizzard has it's own style of game design through and through."

"Total creative autonomy - yes absolutely.

The design teams are still 100% Blizzard, I live near the headquarters in anaheim and I have a good friend who works at Activision in L.A. (skylanders franchise), but he's introduced me around to a few people who say the same thing.

But that doesn't mean that the release date wasn't forced upon them for financial reasons causing them to release the multiplayer halfcocked to ensure a holiday release.

That part I do not know for sure, that's just speculation. But yes, absolutely they still have creative control. It's a financial partnership and blizzard has it's own style of game design through and through."

 

[Jozoz]

Maybe all the good people just left or something. I haven't really followed Blizzard.

 

[J1M]

Maybe all the good people just left or something. I haven't really followed Blizzard.

Maybe the chance of greatness is inversely proportional to the size of the team working on a product.

Maybe individuals have a limited reserve of great ideas and once they have cashed those in for success/power/authority it is guaranteed that their later works will pale in comparison.

 

[Grubba]

Maybe individuals have a limited reserve of great ideas and once they have cashed those in for success/power/authority it is guaranteed that their later works will pale in comparison.

Made me think of this: