4 ms·

Tangential, but this is such a great illustration of how Blizzard as a company has succeeded time and time again in taking nearly impenetrable games and genres

Tangential, but this is such a great illustration of how Blizzard as a company has succeeded time and time again in taking nearly impenetrable games and genres and turning them into something that new players can enjoy, while still retaining enough depth to make the games interesting for advanced players. From MtG and its everchanging sets, significant expense, multiple formats and awful online experience/UI came Hearthstone. A card game that tens of millions have gotten into. It looks fantastic, takes no initial investment, and costs a fraction of what a MtGO deck costs to go from nothing to a top tier competitive deck. Other examples: - Roguelikes -> Diablo - RTS -> Warcraft & Starcraft - MMO -> World of Warcraft - DotA/2 -> Heroes of the Storm - Team Fortress/2 -> Overwatch (not yet released) It's an interesting case study on a company that's succeeded in taking genres usually reserved for a niche audience and bringing them to the masses. It's not a company without flaws and missteps, but it's an interesting lesson in bringing existing markets to a wider audience. I wonder if there's something more general that can be gleaned from their strategy to products outside of games.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- Steko 11y ago
  Diablo 3 was mediocre because the entire genre has been trumped by MMOs. Diablo, x-craft, WoW and HS were all landmarks in their time and good examples of what grandparent is talking about. HotS was beaten to the punch by LOL and Overwatch who knows.
  - minimaxir 11y ago
    The real reason Diablo 3 was mediocre was because of the balancing around the Real Money Auction House and the perverse incentives that resulted. Since it was removed, and now that they've been adding good content for free, the game has improved significantly.
    - Steko 11y ago
      Diablo 3 was one of the most successful game launches ever and well reviewed across the board. The RMAH was a fixable issue, Diablo 3's primary problem -- which is something every Diablo clone has also had to deal with -- is that the Diabloesque hack genre that was one of the dominant genres 15 years ago simply doesn't hold players the way other top games do. People come back to WoW becuase of the social stickyness and the frequent content updates. People come back to LoL because of the head to head gameplay. Diablo's offer of running the same content until your brain explodes to get that an item with slightly better random stats just isn't compelling in 2015.
NhanH 11y ago
Heroes of the Storm is nowhere near the popularity of Dota or Dota 2 yet, let alone the leading game in the genre (League of Legends). And it's still too early to say anything about Overwatch. I wholeheartedly agree that Blizzard has not made one bad game yet. On the other hand, we don't need to hype up their success: several of their recent games have been kind of a ... flop, notably Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2. Both had really good sales on release (not necessary great on Blizzard scale), but the longevity is definitely nowhere near the long time plan they originally have. Starcraft 2 was supposed to become the king of Esport, yet LOL took the charge and firmly stay on top with a significant gap. Diablo 3 Real-money Auction house has to be shut down, and even the mighty WOW lost more than 3 millions subscribers in the last 2 quarters. Hearthstone, however is indeed an amazing success. World of Warcraft is especially an interesting case, seeing that all the 2nd most popular MMO has never came anywhere near the popularity of WoW, it's questionable whether MMO is an actually viable genre in the long run. Note that most other MMO in 2nd place come and go in waves, never lasting more than a few months to a year. The one with the most consistent number of subscribers (and growing) is Eve online, which is firmly in a niche and does not even have 10% of wow players.
- ericdykstra 11y ago
  The jury is still out on Heroes of the Storm, but it has simplified the game to a point where new players to the genre are getting into it. It may be a case where League of Legends already hit close enough to that sweet spot and built enough of a fanbase that HotS doesn't stand a chance, even if it is better executed. I would not call Diablo 3 a flop, by the way. The game has sold over 30 million copies, and the console releases and post-real-money-auction-house balance changes have supposedly made the game great (I'm not a fan of the genre so I don't know first-hand). Anyway, no need to get into too many details on the particulars. They've had enough breakout successes and "unicorn" level games that there's something about the strategy and execution that sets Blizzard apart. From what I can observe, it's some mix of the following: - Simplifying down the core gameplay to something that players can grasp quickly, without compromising complexity (that can be safely ignored for the initial stages). - Making the core gameplay loop fun and repeatable without being repetitive. - Making players feel rewarded for playing and purchasing. (see Hearthstone's "won the game" screen and opening pack animations) - Keeping the games deep enough so that even top, professional players never hit a skill cap.
bigger_cheese 11y ago
I play MtG a few of my MtG friends have recently started playing Hearthstone. From what I've gathered talking to them key differences are: No trading - cards are bound to the account if I have card A and my friend has card B we can't swap cards with each other. RNG - apparently Hearthstone is more RNG influenced then MtG the argument being this makes Hearthstone less skill and more luck based then MtG. The thing I find most objectionable about Magic Online is having to duplicate your paper collection - which essentially means paying for the same cards twice, which is not something I'm all that keen to do. Not an issue for sealed tournaments like drafting but I'm not keen to invest in an electronic constructed format.
- Ntrails 11y ago
  It isn't just that hearthstone is more RNG influenced per se, it's that it is an incredibly shallow game tactically. Part of that is the discreet turns (which also makes the online game considerably more playable than mtg ever managed with endless "breakpoints" in play to confirm no response), but also the actual complexity and interactivity is flat out lower.
- bsder 11y ago
  > The thing I find most objectionable about Magic Online is having to duplicate your paper collection - which essentially means paying for the same cards twice, which is not something I'm all that keen to do. Exactly. Not being able to redeem your digital collection out to paper cards means you are completely at the mercy of WotC for the value of your cards. Um, no. Yes, my physical MtG cards vary in price, but unless WotC actually reprints or bans a card, they tend to stay in a fairly predictable range.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  I really like what Pokemon TCG has done. Every pack has a code you can use online for the same pack (different cards though). You can also get more online packs by playing games online (especially helpful for kids with non-existent incomes). There is just so much less value in electronic cards than in physical ones (namely there is no internet requirement and I can easily lend a friend a physical deck to play with for a day).
Vadoff 11y ago
Heroes of the Storm is probably over 100 times less popular than League of Legends, not much more accessible for new players, and is a much more shallow experience. Dota, LoL, then Dota 2 have been extremely popular and wildly successful far before Heroes of the Storm even entered the scene.
MrJagil 11y ago
To me blizzard has always been a gaming-mirror of Apple in many ways, and I think it's a shame this topic hasn't been explored more. Though they have both faltered a bit in this regard in recent years, a hallmark of both companies is that they never release anything until it's _ready_. You also see this focus reflected in their willingness to "stoop" to simplicity, regardless of the hate they both receive. I could come up with many more examples but the true proof to me is that of the loyal consumer. I know of no one who has only played one blizzard game. If you play WC3, you instantly get a visceral feeling that you can trust their other games to be equally good. Even decades later, as Hearthstone reflects, Blizzards DNA is still shining through. So it is with Apple and their products[0]. Though no one and nothing is perfect, you can sense the maniacal focus behind the scenes. [0] If you consider the years where they've had proper leadership. (i.e. disregard the pepsi years)
henry_vonfire 11y ago
What I really dislike about Blizzard is how they have created this childish look in almost every game. It wasn't bad in Warcraft, I could accept it in WoW but Hearthstone and HotS was too much for me.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Steko 11y ago
Diablo 3 was mediocre because the entire genre has been trumped by MMOs. Diablo, x-craft, WoW and HS were all landmarks in their time and good examples of what grandparent is talking about. HotS was beaten to the punch by LOL and Overwatch who knows.
- minimaxir 11y ago
  The real reason Diablo 3 was mediocre was because of the balancing around the Real Money Auction House and the perverse incentives that resulted. Since it was removed, and now that they've been adding good content for free, the game has improved significantly.
  - Steko 11y ago
    Diablo 3 was one of the most successful game launches ever and well reviewed across the board. The RMAH was a fixable issue, Diablo 3's primary problem -- which is something every Diablo clone has also had to deal with -- is that the Diabloesque hack genre that was one of the dominant genres 15 years ago simply doesn't hold players the way other top games do. People come back to WoW becuase of the social stickyness and the frequent content updates. People come back to LoL because of the head to head gameplay. Diablo's offer of running the same content until your brain explodes to get that an item with slightly better random stats just isn't compelling in 2015.

NhanH 11y ago

Heroes of the Storm is nowhere near the popularity of Dota or Dota 2 yet, let alone the leading game in the genre (League of Legends). And it's still too early to say anything about Overwatch. I wholeheartedly agree that Blizzard has not made one bad game yet. On the other hand, we don't need to hype up their success: several of their recent games have been kind of a ... flop, notably Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2. Both had really good sales on release (not necessary great on Blizzard scale), but the longevity is definitely nowhere near the long time plan they originally have. Starcraft 2 was supposed to become the king of Esport, yet LOL took the charge and firmly stay on top with a significant gap. Diablo 3 Real-money Auction house has to be shut down, and even the mighty WOW lost more than 3 millions subscribers in the last 2 quarters. Hearthstone, however is indeed an amazing success. World of Warcraft is especially an interesting case, seeing that all the 2nd most popular MMO has never came anywhere near the popularity of WoW, it's questionable whether MMO is an actually viable genre in the long run. Note that most other MMO in 2nd place come and go in waves, never lasting more than a few months to a year. The one with the most consistent number of subscribers (and growing) is Eve online, which is firmly in a niche and does not even have 10% of wow players.

ericdykstra 11y ago
The jury is still out on Heroes of the Storm, but it has simplified the game to a point where new players to the genre are getting into it. It may be a case where League of Legends already hit close enough to that sweet spot and built enough of a fanbase that HotS doesn't stand a chance, even if it is better executed. I would not call Diablo 3 a flop, by the way. The game has sold over 30 million copies, and the console releases and post-real-money-auction-house balance changes have supposedly made the game great (I'm not a fan of the genre so I don't know first-hand). Anyway, no need to get into too many details on the particulars. They've had enough breakout successes and "unicorn" level games that there's something about the strategy and execution that sets Blizzard apart. From what I can observe, it's some mix of the following: - Simplifying down the core gameplay to something that players can grasp quickly, without compromising complexity (that can be safely ignored for the initial stages). - Making the core gameplay loop fun and repeatable without being repetitive. - Making players feel rewarded for playing and purchasing. (see Hearthstone's "won the game" screen and opening pack animations) - Keeping the games deep enough so that even top, professional players never hit a skill cap.

bigger_cheese 11y ago

I play MtG a few of my MtG friends have recently started playing Hearthstone. From what I've gathered talking to them key differences are: No trading - cards are bound to the account if I have card A and my friend has card B we can't swap cards with each other. RNG - apparently Hearthstone is more RNG influenced then MtG the argument being this makes Hearthstone less skill and more luck based then MtG. The thing I find most objectionable about Magic Online is having to duplicate your paper collection - which essentially means paying for the same cards twice, which is not something I'm all that keen to do. Not an issue for sealed tournaments like drafting but I'm not keen to invest in an electronic constructed format.

Ntrails 11y ago
It isn't just that hearthstone is more RNG influenced per se, it's that it is an incredibly shallow game tactically. Part of that is the discreet turns (which also makes the online game considerably more playable than mtg ever managed with endless "breakpoints" in play to confirm no response), but also the actual complexity and interactivity is flat out lower.
bsder 11y ago
> The thing I find most objectionable about Magic Online is having to duplicate your paper collection - which essentially means paying for the same cards twice, which is not something I'm all that keen to do. Exactly. Not being able to redeem your digital collection out to paper cards means you are completely at the mercy of WotC for the value of your cards. Um, no. Yes, my physical MtG cards vary in price, but unless WotC actually reprints or bans a card, they tend to stay in a fairly predictable range.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
I really like what Pokemon TCG has done. Every pack has a code you can use online for the same pack (different cards though). You can also get more online packs by playing games online (especially helpful for kids with non-existent incomes). There is just so much less value in electronic cards than in physical ones (namely there is no internet requirement and I can easily lend a friend a physical deck to play with for a day).

Vadoff 11y ago

Heroes of the Storm is probably over 100 times less popular than League of Legends, not much more accessible for new players, and is a much more shallow experience. Dota, LoL, then Dota 2 have been extremely popular and wildly successful far before Heroes of the Storm even entered the scene.

MrJagil 11y ago

To me blizzard has always been a gaming-mirror of Apple in many ways, and I think it's a shame this topic hasn't been explored more. Though they have both faltered a bit in this regard in recent years, a hallmark of both companies is that they never release anything until it's _ready_. You also see this focus reflected in their willingness to "stoop" to simplicity, regardless of the hate they both receive. I could come up with many more examples but the true proof to me is that of the loyal consumer. I know of no one who has only played one blizzard game. If you play WC3, you instantly get a visceral feeling that you can trust their other games to be equally good. Even decades later, as Hearthstone reflects, Blizzards DNA is still shining through. So it is with Apple and their products[0]. Though no one and nothing is perfect, you can sense the maniacal focus behind the scenes. [0] If you consider the years where they've had proper leadership. (i.e. disregard the pepsi years)

henry_vonfire 11y ago

What I really dislike about Blizzard is how they have created this childish look in almost every game. It wasn't bad in Warcraft, I could accept it in WoW but Hearthstone and HotS was too much for me.