5 ms·

> In the future, Kotick said Activision-Blizzard will invest primarily in live services, Battle.net, and esports, with a focus on the following franchises: Cand

by lwkl 8y ago

> In the future, Kotick said Activision-Blizzard will invest primarily in live services, Battle.net, and esports, with a focus on the following franchises: Candy Crush, Call of Duty, Overwatch, Warcraft, Diablo, and Hearthstone. No mention of StarCraft. This makes me sad. While I don‘t play video games anymore StarCraft was a big part of my childhood and it had a big influence on gaming and e-sports. I don‘t think Twitch and streaming would be as big if it weren‘t for StarCraft and the amazing people around it. Something about this game attracted driven people with great personalities.

tnecniv 8y ago
It's also disappointing because that's about as conservative as they can be in terms of franchises. They should resurrect Lost Vikings.
- cwilkes 8y ago
  Also this points to no new projects coming out of Activision. What employee in their right mind would want to take a chance on a new thing at a company that throws away fellow employees like that?
kromem 8y ago
And no discussion of new franchises. It's generally not a good sign when a company decides to try and live on the graces of its past success and not continue striving for greatness.
- benologist 8y ago
  They're striving for greatness in new ways, like teaching kids to spend irresponsibly on loot boxes then firing everyone and waiting on a plan B when they realize Europe is not open to gambling options for kids.
- cloverich 8y ago
  You have a point, but Overwatch is still a new franchise, and for me it resurrected online FPS gameplay which hadn't changed much since I played TFC and Counterstrike nearly 20 years ago. I'd expect them to dedicate a substantial portion of their efforts towards maintaining and growing that franchise, and would for at least the next few years would consider that investment towards the "new".
aeturnum 8y ago
Blizzard really tried to make Starcraft 2 "a thing" and, while it has a devoted following, I don't think it ever got to the level of success Blizzard was seeking. I can understand why, from a business perspective, Blizzard decided not to pursue Starcraft for the foreseeable future. I think it's worth saying that, on some level, the social phenomenon of Starcraft 1 and Warcraft 3 came from the user-created content that came out of the games' full-featured map editors. Now, it feels like that creative energy is flowing through Minecraft-like games and massively improved freely available game engines.
- blibble 8y ago
  for starcraft 2 they essentially killed the ability for third parties to build any sort of mod community via their crappy battle.net chat/custom games system then they were surprised that no mod community popped up
- hnick 8y ago
  Definitely. Even on the more competitive side, Quake 3 got something like the CPMA mod to tweak the balance and rules to make it better for competitive gaming. Zero chance of that for SC2. Lack of LAN mode for competitions was just such an obvious indicator they spoke about esports but didn't really understand it.
- arcticfox 8y ago
  > I can understand why, from a business perspective, Blizzard decided not to pursue Starcraft for the foreseeable future. I know they didn't mention it, but Blizzard's support for Starcraft seems as good as it has been. The tourney viewership numbers are better than ever in recent memory. So it's not like they're shutting it down like they did to Heroes of the Storm, they're just keeping status quo.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- sbov 8y ago
  > Now, it feels like that creative energy is flowing through Minecraft-like games and massively improved freely available game engines. Is it really? I play a lot of strategy games on steam (civ, stellaris, crusader kings 2, eu4) and they seem to have a wealth of mods available.
muthdra 8y ago
There's this funny video that exemplifies Kotick's mindset. Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 - Hey Ash Whatcha Playin'? (2013) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuHqUpleIfA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuHqUpleIfA
BigJono 8y ago
These guys are idiots. SC2 has been getting bigger internationally lately, it's still huge in Korea, it's the only e-sport I find interesting to watch without actually having played the game myself (outside of half the single player campaign), and it's got decades of history and name recognition behind it as a marketing asset. These morons don't give a shit about e-sports. They're just looking for a quick buck with this overwatch and HotS rubbish before they toss it to the curb as soon as they encounter the slightest bit of friction. Blizzard has made so many bad decisions in the space of the last 2 years that it's almost unbelievable. The fact that Kotick can say this with a straight face makes me think they won't even be a company in 10 years time. They're nearing zero trust from the consumer, the e-sports community, and anyone else that isn't one of their paper pushing peers, way in over their head in an industry they don't understand. How can they expect to survive long term? It feels like the company is being sold off for parts, just with a few extra steps.
- seventhtiger 8y ago
  StarCraft 2 perfected the classic RTS, but the genre was dead the day people started knowing Warcraft 3 as "Dota". I doubt it can compete with MOBAs until some real innovation happens.
  - baud147258 8y ago
    Does it need to compete with MOBAs, though? I mean RTS are now a genre separated from MOBAs, less mainstream/more niche, but they can still make some money from RTSs
    - seventhtiger 8y ago
      The MOBA scene was built on top of the RTS scene. You could say sports/fighting/FPS games don't compete with RTS, but MOBA does.
    - ionised 8y ago
      MOBA is the newer genre. It emerged out of a mod for an RTS game, Warcraft 3.
BurningCycles 8y ago
>No mention of StarCraft. This makes me sad. Same here, I still play Broodwars with my buddies once or twice a month. I think the 'problem' is that Starcraft is hard/impossible to monetize further than the actual initial sale, and thus with the way these companies are currently being ran, Starcraft is not a very attractive model.
- sudo_rm 8y ago
  It's not the worse thing to monetize. They started releasing skins, announcers, etc for players to purchase.
miluge 8y ago
With a focus on Candy Crush! It just makes me sad...

by lwkl 8y ago

tnecniv 8y ago

It's also disappointing because that's about as conservative as they can be in terms of franchises. They should resurrect Lost Vikings.

cwilkes 8y ago
Also this points to no new projects coming out of Activision. What employee in their right mind would want to take a chance on a new thing at a company that throws away fellow employees like that?

kromem 8y ago

And no discussion of new franchises. It's generally not a good sign when a company decides to try and live on the graces of its past success and not continue striving for greatness.

benologist 8y ago
They're striving for greatness in new ways, like teaching kids to spend irresponsibly on loot boxes then firing everyone and waiting on a plan B when they realize Europe is not open to gambling options for kids.
cloverich 8y ago
You have a point, but Overwatch is still a new franchise, and for me it resurrected online FPS gameplay which hadn't changed much since I played TFC and Counterstrike nearly 20 years ago. I'd expect them to dedicate a substantial portion of their efforts towards maintaining and growing that franchise, and would for at least the next few years would consider that investment towards the "new".

aeturnum 8y ago

Blizzard really tried to make Starcraft 2 "a thing" and, while it has a devoted following, I don't think it ever got to the level of success Blizzard was seeking. I can understand why, from a business perspective, Blizzard decided not to pursue Starcraft for the foreseeable future. I think it's worth saying that, on some level, the social phenomenon of Starcraft 1 and Warcraft 3 came from the user-created content that came out of the games' full-featured map editors. Now, it feels like that creative energy is flowing through Minecraft-like games and massively improved freely available game engines.

blibble 8y ago
for starcraft 2 they essentially killed the ability for third parties to build any sort of mod community via their crappy battle.net chat/custom games system then they were surprised that no mod community popped up
hnick 8y ago
Definitely. Even on the more competitive side, Quake 3 got something like the CPMA mod to tweak the balance and rules to make it better for competitive gaming. Zero chance of that for SC2. Lack of LAN mode for competitions was just such an obvious indicator they spoke about esports but didn't really understand it.
arcticfox 8y ago
> I can understand why, from a business perspective, Blizzard decided not to pursue Starcraft for the foreseeable future. I know they didn't mention it, but Blizzard's support for Starcraft seems as good as it has been. The tourney viewership numbers are better than ever in recent memory. So it's not like they're shutting it down like they did to Heroes of the Storm, they're just keeping status quo.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
sbov 8y ago
> Now, it feels like that creative energy is flowing through Minecraft-like games and massively improved freely available game engines. Is it really? I play a lot of strategy games on steam (civ, stellaris, crusader kings 2, eu4) and they seem to have a wealth of mods available.

muthdra 8y ago

There's this funny video that exemplifies Kotick's mindset. Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 - Hey Ash Whatcha Playin'? (2013) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuHqUpleIfA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuHqUpleIfA

BigJono 8y ago

These guys are idiots. SC2 has been getting bigger internationally lately, it's still huge in Korea, it's the only e-sport I find interesting to watch without actually having played the game myself (outside of half the single player campaign), and it's got decades of history and name recognition behind it as a marketing asset. These morons don't give a shit about e-sports. They're just looking for a quick buck with this overwatch and HotS rubbish before they toss it to the curb as soon as they encounter the slightest bit of friction. Blizzard has made so many bad decisions in the space of the last 2 years that it's almost unbelievable. The fact that Kotick can say this with a straight face makes me think they won't even be a company in 10 years time. They're nearing zero trust from the consumer, the e-sports community, and anyone else that isn't one of their paper pushing peers, way in over their head in an industry they don't understand. How can they expect to survive long term? It feels like the company is being sold off for parts, just with a few extra steps.

seventhtiger 8y ago
StarCraft 2 perfected the classic RTS, but the genre was dead the day people started knowing Warcraft 3 as "Dota". I doubt it can compete with MOBAs until some real innovation happens.
- baud147258 8y ago
  Does it need to compete with MOBAs, though? I mean RTS are now a genre separated from MOBAs, less mainstream/more niche, but they can still make some money from RTSs
  - seventhtiger 8y ago
    The MOBA scene was built on top of the RTS scene. You could say sports/fighting/FPS games don't compete with RTS, but MOBA does.
  - ionised 8y ago
    MOBA is the newer genre. It emerged out of a mod for an RTS game, Warcraft 3.

BurningCycles 8y ago

>No mention of StarCraft. This makes me sad. Same here, I still play Broodwars with my buddies once or twice a month. I think the 'problem' is that Starcraft is hard/impossible to monetize further than the actual initial sale, and thus with the way these companies are currently being ran, Starcraft is not a very attractive model.

sudo_rm 8y ago
It's not the worse thing to monetize. They started releasing skins, announcers, etc for players to purchase.

miluge 8y ago

With a focus on Candy Crush! It just makes me sad...