4 ms·

All those games you list are bloated games that are really only fueled by nostalgia players now. When is the last time Blizzard really innovated and made somet

All those games you list are bloated games that are really only fueled by nostalgia players now. When is the last time Blizzard really innovated and made something we all had to play like Diablo I and II, Starcraft, and of course WoW? I don’t think it can anymore. It sold its soul to Activision and all the passionate people are gone, judging by their recent games.

bathtub365 6y ago
Since World of Warcraft they’ve released Starcraft 2, Diablo 3, Hearthstone, Heroes of the Storm, and Overwatch. Those all seem to be quite popular (though admittedly D3 took some time to find its footing).
- falcolas 6y ago
  Of those, one is active, one in “slowed” development, and the rest have been put into maintenance mode. The downside of live services; they get shut down eventually. Plus, WoW was released 16 years ago? And their most recent - Overwatch - almost 5 years ago now.
hombre_fatal 6y ago
However you want to trash them, the fact is that they maintain 3 of the top 20 games viewed on Twitch at this moment.
- JohnJamesRambo 6y ago
  And McDonald’s is the top fast food chain but that doesn’t make it good. Rather it caters to the lowest common denominator, something Activision-Blizzard has excelled at. I’m talking about quality.
  - yreg 6y ago
    McDonald's is an amazing company. We are discussing product/financial health here, not whether you like them.
radicalriddler 6y ago
Overwatch is a very popular ISP for Blizzard. All my friends "needed" to buy this $70 AUD game, in a time when games like CS:GO ($15), League of Legends, and Dota were very popular and most of them F2P. That was only 2016...
joshuamorton 6y ago
Wow peaked at ~20 million players. Overwatch has 40 million and Hearthstone 100 million. I think by most metrics more people are passionate about the newer games.
Ataraxy 6y ago
That would be Hearthstone but your point still stands.
_blu 6y ago
I completely agree. Overwatch was a reactionary game, meaning they wanted to cash in on the success of games like it. Heroes of the storm is also just that; a reactionary game. Usually it's a very bad sign when a company turns after the marked instead of being a leader. It's a sign of growing too big and getting conservative. It's a steady decline that is difficult to get out of.
- Fnoord 6y ago
  They took a concept (coop/role FPS such as TF, and MOBA) and tried to make a great franchise and implementation of it. I'd say they did the same with Hearthstone (hello Magic: the Gathering), and RTS (Warcraft I wasn't the first RTS). Not sure if Diablo was the first ARPG. Starcraft obviously was not the first RTS. Arguably, the only original game they ever made was their coop platform game, Vikings back when it wasn't even called Blizzard. Overwatch is a completely new franchise though, so in that regard its novel. The cashing in can be seen in different ways. Selling out their Diablo IP to NetEase for a mobile game (and having the guts to market it for a PC crowd). Their microtransactions in WoW while still having the subscription model as well. Them laying off nearly a thousand people while profit is at all-time high, while CEO gets bonus. All the silly DLCs for SC2. At least they didn't bother with another DLC for Diablo 3 after RoS. Mike Morheime left for Dreamhaven together with a crowd of entrepreneurs and daredevils. Hopefully he succeeds where Schaefer brothers failed.
- hansbo 6y ago
  All their games have been reactionary, though? It's not like Diablo was the first hack and slash, nor Warcraft the original RTS. Blizzard's strength have always been refinement - take an existing genre and make the very best version of it. I think they succeeded with that in both Hearthstone and Overwatch.
  - _blu 6y ago
    no, that's not what i mean. nothing is really original when in some respect. Reactionary means wanting to get in on a trend. Heroes of the storm was made because games like dota and league was making bank. Overwatch was made based on the growing fps genre's sucess. Their early games was not made on the sole reason to emulate something popular.

bathtub365 6y ago

Since World of Warcraft they’ve released Starcraft 2, Diablo 3, Hearthstone, Heroes of the Storm, and Overwatch. Those all seem to be quite popular (though admittedly D3 took some time to find its footing).

falcolas 6y ago
Of those, one is active, one in “slowed” development, and the rest have been put into maintenance mode. The downside of live services; they get shut down eventually. Plus, WoW was released 16 years ago? And their most recent - Overwatch - almost 5 years ago now.

hombre_fatal 6y ago

However you want to trash them, the fact is that they maintain 3 of the top 20 games viewed on Twitch at this moment.

JohnJamesRambo 6y ago
And McDonald’s is the top fast food chain but that doesn’t make it good. Rather it caters to the lowest common denominator, something Activision-Blizzard has excelled at. I’m talking about quality.
- yreg 6y ago
  McDonald's is an amazing company. We are discussing product/financial health here, not whether you like them.

radicalriddler 6y ago

Overwatch is a very popular ISP for Blizzard. All my friends "needed" to buy this $70 AUD game, in a time when games like CS:GO ($15), League of Legends, and Dota were very popular and most of them F2P. That was only 2016...

joshuamorton 6y ago

Wow peaked at ~20 million players. Overwatch has 40 million and Hearthstone 100 million. I think by most metrics more people are passionate about the newer games.

Ataraxy 6y ago

That would be Hearthstone but your point still stands.

_blu 6y ago

I completely agree. Overwatch was a reactionary game, meaning they wanted to cash in on the success of games like it. Heroes of the storm is also just that; a reactionary game. Usually it's a very bad sign when a company turns after the marked instead of being a leader. It's a sign of growing too big and getting conservative. It's a steady decline that is difficult to get out of.

Fnoord 6y ago
They took a concept (coop/role FPS such as TF, and MOBA) and tried to make a great franchise and implementation of it. I'd say they did the same with Hearthstone (hello Magic: the Gathering), and RTS (Warcraft I wasn't the first RTS). Not sure if Diablo was the first ARPG. Starcraft obviously was not the first RTS. Arguably, the only original game they ever made was their coop platform game, Vikings back when it wasn't even called Blizzard. Overwatch is a completely new franchise though, so in that regard its novel. The cashing in can be seen in different ways. Selling out their Diablo IP to NetEase for a mobile game (and having the guts to market it for a PC crowd). Their microtransactions in WoW while still having the subscription model as well. Them laying off nearly a thousand people while profit is at all-time high, while CEO gets bonus. All the silly DLCs for SC2. At least they didn't bother with another DLC for Diablo 3 after RoS. Mike Morheime left for Dreamhaven together with a crowd of entrepreneurs and daredevils. Hopefully he succeeds where Schaefer brothers failed.
hansbo 6y ago
All their games have been reactionary, though? It's not like Diablo was the first hack and slash, nor Warcraft the original RTS. Blizzard's strength have always been refinement - take an existing genre and make the very best version of it. I think they succeeded with that in both Hearthstone and Overwatch.
- _blu 6y ago
  no, that's not what i mean. nothing is really original when in some respect. Reactionary means wanting to get in on a trend. Heroes of the storm was made because games like dota and league was making bank. Overwatch was made based on the growing fps genre's sucess. Their early games was not made on the sole reason to emulate something popular.