Does Blizzard have a Monopoly?

-Nobody is saying divisions are bad for silver. If anyone is, it's very easy to show them they're mistaken, so there's no need to bring that up.
-I have no idea what NSMBW is.
-Not everyone who feels a game shouldn't be dumbed down is "bitching and moaning". I find that offensive.
-I'm not a good player, and I definitely won't be in the proleague. That doesn't mean I don't want the competitive scene to flourish. Remember that SC2 is supposed to be an ESport. By 2015, the casual mass will only still be playing if they enjoy the scene and there is stuff going on (ESports).

I think nobody is better suited to promote the first true worldwide ESport game (that can do better than CS, Wc3, Q3 etc...) than Blizzard. Maybe that's because they have such a huge market share (OMG! I managed to come back to the original topic!!).

edit: woops Kimera swooped in^^ I'll quote the post I was responding to:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TychusFindlay

The point is that people who have a problem with divisions are of the "progamer" mentality and they are not for you. The pro league is the league for you. It is there for a reason (once they implement it :D). To say that there's a problem with the lower leagues is to completely miss the point. It's like how I saw so many people bitch and moan about the feature in NSMBW where if you die 8 times the game shows you how to get past where you are. The more elite gamers hated it. But, the point is, is that it's not implemented for you and there are alternatives given for people like you. Let certain aspects of the game cater to the casuals while you focus on the aspects that are meant for you.

Simple.

---

NSMBW - New Super Mario Bros Wii

If you aren't the top in your division then you shouldn't be all that worried about your universal rank, in my opinion. I don't know why you care if you're 723,822,823,987th or 723,822,823,988th. Still, if you are, just go by score. It's there for a reason and is very close to what you are asking for.

In what what way is eSports being harmed? The pro gamers are either playing in the pro league or playing other pro gamers through custom games.

-- Also, chances are I wasn't talking about you when I spoke about whiners. I'm referring to the more vocal and, in my opinion, more irrational comments I've seen. You'll know it when you see it and, no, I'm not just talking about the people who have a problem with this or that. Other than that, I'd say you're just voicing your opinion and there's nothing wrong with that ... unless you are, indeed, one of the posters I'm talking about. I don't keep up with names though. Too many to do so :D

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kimera757

Seems to me Blizzard should post the "actual rank" somewhere, but I still think you need divisions for the A-D equivalent rankings.

---

Absolutely. We need global ranking. I believe we'll get it, but it's too bad it took such a fan-storm to bring such an obvious fact to blizzard's attention.
Also, I don't think leagues NEED divisions, but I agree they are a very positive addition to leagues bronze=>platinum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kimera757

I agree. It's sad when elitists act like bullies. Continuing on that vein, I used to complain about the bitching we got from elitists for the last three years. Upon further reflection, I realize I had that wrong. They've been the kings of the hill ever since progaming took off, a decade or so ago, but for the last three years they've been complaining that their position is being threatened, and just as interest among new gamers increased, they got exposed to said bitching. (I still recall a comment on Teamliquid where someone had heard subgroups were being eliminated and they were glad that gamers would "have" to fight the interface.) The masses might have listened to them more if many of them didn't act like know-it-all bullies.

---

Alright, now I have no idea what you're discussing.

The people who want the game to have neither MBS, automine, smartcast, or subgroups are not at fault because they are being elitist. The main flaw with these requests is that they don't stimulate the right ranking criteria. What they want is the scene to be competitive, and to bring out the best players, but their mistake is thinking that this is still BW, and that the best player is the one who can handle the archaic UI the best. This isn't elitism, this is just bad judgement (or one could argue it's a difference in opinions...). The people who had that bad judgement just happen to be elitist as well ;) but there are different ways of wanting to enhance the competitive scene.
=> Now the criteria are different, and those individuals need to understand that.

Most people just want the game to be more competitive. Don't you think the best player should be winning? Do you think that because someone wants a true ranking he's being elitist?

So my question is: who exactly do you think is being elitist? Are any changes for the top tier players taking anything away from the bronze league? Would a unique diamond division bother them?

I hope this won't get derailed :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TychusFindlay

If you aren't the top in your division then you shouldn't be all that worried about your universal rank, in my opinion. I don't know why you care if you're 723,822,823,987th or 723,822,823,988th. Still, if you are, just go by score. It's there for a reason and is very close to what you are asking for.

---

-I was obviously trying to say that although I'm not a good player, I still want the top players (pro-league), and the diamond players (where I'm at now, but should change at release), to have an ideal environment to compete, because that'll help the competitive scene do well. If the diamond players are in a sea where the #1 players don't have anything telling them apart, lots of talent and dedication will go to waste and a future bonjwa might never get his chance. Nobody knows how many divisions there are, nor do they know who the king of the #1s is.
-And what about the mid-diamond player who wants to know how much progress he's made? How does he do that? Score means nothing, whom can I compare myself to? And can I compare my score one day to my score two weeks ago? No.
-If I'm 20th in my diamond division, that doesn't mean anything because it could be a weak division. That also means that going from 20th to 10th doesn't mean much at all, unless you're trying to delude yourself into thinking that you're awesome.
-If you're 723,822,823,987th, you're not living on planet earth. If your rank is any very very high number, then you're neither in pro nor in diamond. Did you read my previous post? If you're the last player in diamond, you'll probably drop down to platinum to open a slot for a plat player to move up. If you're stable in diamond, you'll want to know how much progress you've made, so your actual rank is very relevant, even if you're going from 9,534th to 8,213th.

Why the same things need to be repeated over and over again beats me^^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hammy

The people who want the game to have neither MBS, automine, smartcast, or subgroups are not at fault because they are being elitist.

The main flaw with these requests is that they don't stimulate the right ranking criteria.

What they want is the scene to be competitive, and to bring out the best players, but their mistake is thinking that this is still BW, and that the best player is the one who can handle the archaic UI the best. This isn't elitism, this is just bad judgement (or one could argue it's a difference in opinions...). The people who had that bad judgement just happen to be elitist as well ;) but there are different ways of wanting to enhance the competitive scene.

---

We need a simple term for that though. Something not insulting (so I can't call them cyber-Luddites).

Quote:

---

Most people just want the game to be more competitive. Don't you think the best player should be winning? Do you think that because someone wants a true ranking he's being elitist?

---

No. I just think they need to respect the position of the lower-ranking players as well. Which is why I now agree that both league metal rankings and full rankings should be there. That'd serve everyone.

Of course, Blizzard doesn't to give away the point ratings, though, so I don't know how they can give a "proper" esports-oriented rating for people who haven't yet entered the pro-league without giving away the math. They've got a month to work that out.

Quote:

---

So my question is: who exactly do you think is being elitist?

---

As someone who doesn't follow the competitive scene, it's difficult to answer this question precisely. (And of course, the term "elitist", no matter whose definition we use, must be broad.)

But generally, I'd say those who wanted to fit the game so it suits only high-skilled players, and not all players, would count as "elitists". This overlaps heavily with people who don't want the game to change from Brood War (in that many people from one camp are also in the other camp).

And of course, people from both those camps often denigrate those who aren't as skilled or as competitive.

Quote:

---

Are any changes for the top tier players taking anything away from the bronze league? Would a unique diamond division bother them?

---

On the battle.net 2.0 issue, I'd say no.

Diamond isn't really for casual players either. It wouldn't bother me if diamond league didn't have divisions, but it would bother me if, say, silver didn't.

As for the term "Stop Having Fun Guys" that's like people who give unfun advice, like "don't watch your battles". It's probably good advice in StarCraft I if you want to win... but it's also bad advice, because games are supposed to be fun, and watching over (or even micro-ing) your battles is fun for vast segments of the population. Many "elitists"* not only enjoy playing that way - I have to wonder if they got trained to think this is fun - they got upset when features like automine made that largely unnecessary. (It's very hard for a non-elite person who wants to have fun watching or micro-ing battles hearing the elitists arguing to make the game less fun for them, just to serve a small segment of the population.)

*But a real elitist could handle both (hence the addition of macro mechanics in an effort to satisfy them). The real problem was at lower levels of play, where micro and macro were not balanced, and the requirement to go back to your base three times a minute while not watching your fun battles was a big part of this. If you tell people that's the only way to play... well, no wonder battle.net 1.0 has so many fewer players than people who purchased StarCraft. (One reason. A lack of AMM is another reason.)

Quote:

---

If I'm 20th in my diamond division, that doesn't mean anything because it could be a weak division.

---

Is that really the case? I haven't seen anything to suggest that one division is in any way different from another division. Hell, I'm pretty sure I bounced from one division to anot)her constantly. I couldn't even remember what division I was in! But maybe I'm misremembering. (The rank number was far more important than whether I was "Tal'darim Silver Bravo" or "Infestor Pepper Silver".)

But... you can watch your battles if you want to! You just won't be very good at the game.

What if someone thought running while flailing their arms all around were more fun than running in a normal, optimal way? Well they could, but they'd get crushed at a track&field meet.

Aren't all sports supposed to be about fun? But they can also be all about competition, and being the best.

I agree that there shouldn't be any rules added for the soles purpose of making the game "harder" mechanically, and I don't think there are any. There should only be changes to enhance gameplay (say... the offside in soccer, since it's the WorldCup right now).


Sorry about misunderstanding what you meant by elitist earlier. You were indeed using the term accurately, but I honestly haven't seen much of that lately so... Dunno, I don't have much of an opinion besides thinking they're wrong^^

Quote:

---

Of course, Blizzard doesn't to give away the point ratings, though, so I don't know how they can give a "proper" esports-oriented rating for people who haven't yet entered the pro-league without giving away the math. They've got a month to work that out.

---

That would be awesome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hammy

But... you can watch your battles if you want to! You just won't be very good at the game.

---

No, I disagree. You'll be very bad at the game since you won't be doing the very basic and very important task of moving your workers that just came out of the town center to the mineral field. You won't even be able to beat the simple AI. But most importantly, it's not fun, unless you've got that certain amount of skill. You just had to spend too much time doing non-fun things (like babysitting workers), which is why you didn't have time to actually manage your battles. (Or you did the latter, but without nearly enough units to have a chance of winning.)

It's not like soccer. In soccer, moving the ball around the field without using your hands obviously takes more skill than just ... carrying it. But kicking the ball from one end of the field to another is still a fun part of the game.

But what if someone told you that you could only stay in a certain zone? Or had to constantly "head" the ball? Or hop on one leg? That might be fun for those who are athletically gifted... probably would be. Not so much fun for those who play in the park, even though everyone else still faces the same restrictions.

Quote:

---

What if someone thought running while flailing their arms all around were more fun than running in a normal, optimal way? Well they could, but they'd get crushed at a track&field meet.

---

Sounds tiring. See above.

Quote:

---

Aren't all sports supposed to be about fun? But they can also be all about competition, and being the best.

---

yeah, that's why I'm glad there's an AMM now. You can play with your friends in the park, if that's your level, and you can have fun both playing and by trying to win. You can play little league, if that's your level. You can play in the majors, if that's your level. But if you're playing in the park, Sammy Sosa isn't going to show up and smurf your game.

Quote:

---

I agree that there shouldn't be any rules added for the soles purpose of making the game "harder" mechanically, and I don't think there are any.

---

Not in StarCraft II. Actually, I can think of just one. You can't target wireframes for spells. It's a little annoying being unable to quickly use Transfusion (when you have a queen and one or more ultralisks in a control group) on the wireframe of the most wounded ultralisk. (Of course, there's that inability to select buildings and units simultaneously, which means you couldn't do this to wounded spine crawlers as quickly) probably for the best since, if anytime you drew a box around your drones and hatchery you got them both, it'd do more harm to good.

Quote:

---

There should only be changes to enhance gameplay (say... the offside in soccer, since it's the WorldCup right now).

---

I'll have you know, my experience with soccer basically involved picking a side, then kicking the ball from one end of the field to another, with passing and evasions, then kicking the ball into the net. We didn't have referees or penalty kicks. Which means I have no idea what "offside" even means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kimera757

Blizzard needs to prioritize. Things like multiplayer game balance (which, of course, isn't perfect) is probably more important than LAN. Whether someone wants to play on battle.net or on LAN, game balance is going to be important to them. LAN, on the other hand, is only important to some unknown percentage of (potential) customers.

---

You're right, Blizzard does need to prioritize. Thats what they've utterly failed at here. You act as if Blizzard ran such a tight schedule that they were incapable of having Chat before release and still have a functional game.

That isn't a plausible with a company with Blizzards size and funding. They simply did not value things like Chat channels from the beginning of the project, they did not plan it into the core infrastructure. Perhaps as of four months ago, the project was already so near completion that chat channels could not have been made on time for release. But the fact is it simply was never a core objective to have it on time for release.

Battle.net 2.0 has its own team. It doesn't interfere with anything besides the featrues of b-net 2.0 itself. They've been constantly recruiting designers and programmers for the two years of its existence, and the fact is, if Chat channels isn't alongside custom games or matchmaking, it simply wasn't a core priority. For a lot of players. especially those who enjoy the community aspect of Starcraft 1, such as the community revolving around esports, not including chat channels would be similar to not including custom games lists.


And as consumers, we have every bit the right to rage and at how chat channels was not a priority.

Quote:

---

We need a simple term for that though. Something not insulting (so I can't call them cyber-Luddites).

---

They aren't luddites at the least because they aren't opposed to change. Their opposed to the current dynamics of the game industry that cause every single change to cause the game to require less mechanical and strategic skills on behalf of the player.

This kind of gets reduced into hating change just because its change somewhere down the line, just like how complaining that b-net 2.0 sucks got reduced into bashing Blizzard for being greedy, but the core mentality behind it is pretty legit.

Luddites would be people who are opposed to technology because their against progress in general. These people don't believe its progress, but regression.

I mean honestly, if we look at the core gameplay changes in SC2, every single one of them except macro mechanics is directed so a player has less expressions of skill. Because thats what they were all about. Up until 2003ish, every single game was about expanding games as a means for individuals to express themselves through gameplay. Then you look at the next seven years, and I can't even think of a single game that allowed an individual to distinguish himself through game play MORE then the predecessor.

SC1's formula was just so intrinsically awesome and deep that you can reduce some mechanical requirements and the skill cap is far unattainable. So SC2 works. But still. It certainly isn't making the game more mechanically deep.

Quote:

---

It's not because many people play WoW that it's a good/innovative/interesting game.

---

Oh? Name a single MMO of a similar vein and nature that is objectively better, explain why.

Quote:

---

I know that because I played it for ages, made a huge guild, transfered to a top-tier guild, spent(wasted) tons of time on that game, while only actually enjoying a fraction of that time.
What you call "new content" is rehashed material. What you call "making a good game", in the case of WoW, is satisfying the masses with the least investment possible.

---

I call it "good classical MMO design". I'm sorry your bitter for sinking time in WoW, but having also played a year of WoW (though I never found it terribly addictive lol), its probably the "best" MMO out their besides MMOs that explore alternative models that don't cater to other playstyles, and are incomparable (like my personal favorite, Guild Wars, or EVE).

Quote:

---

Of course all of this depends on your taste, but if you think big hollywood action movies are the best movies out there, you just have none.

---

:/. It doesn't work like that. Beyond you comparing MMOs to Cinema, gaming and art have different values. When I approach a film, I'm looking for more values then just titillation from SFX. I'm looking for the emotional and philsophical values we collectively constitute as depth as well. If you played a MMO looking for those values, you're doing what we call "doing it wrong".

Now what values can you expect of a MMO? You'll find that WoW fulfills them better then any competitor on the market. MMOs are by nature built on building worlds with social dynamics, not on the nuiances of gameplay or story. Would you like to contest that Warhammer has better gameplay? Or Aeon a better world? If if they are slightly better (semi-arguable), they're hardly in such a league that puts WoW to shame.

Every single change Blizzard made to WoW is congruent with the values one expects from a MMO. What were you expecting? Deep and meaningful combat? WoW never had that. No traditional MMO ever had that. The only MMO that ever had anything approaching that was Guild Wars (<3). Meaningful PvP content? (Guild wars again <3). Nope. World Building? Yup.


You seem to be suffering from what I like to term "MMO burnout syndrome". "I wasted a year of my life on WoW and all I got was this lousy T-shirt". You invested a lot of time on WoW, and in the end, when you quit, you realized how hollow and meaningless it all was, and proceeded to rage.

Well...yea. You spend that much time on any game, and you'll have to realize at some point that its just a game. You're blaming Blizzard for "why wasn't that experience meaningful". Well, thats a bit unfair. Its a really heft expectation to make a purely online video game meaningful in such large amounts to the point where you don't regret playing it for a year.

Quote:

---

Blizzard used to constantly say "we just want to make awesome games for the the gamers"; that is not the case anymore. Now it's about profit and efficiency.

---

I originally addressed this with an "ugh", and I really can't address it with anything else. Its such a terribly naive and insular view of the game industry. Not to insult you or anything, I mean, knowledge of the game industry is hardly a measure of a persons intelligence or worth. But really. It doesn't work like that.

90% of Mainstream studios will have better values, working conditions, design goals, vision, and lack of greed then 90% of small or indie studios. The only difference is that mainstream studios have the power to draw money from the customer, because they already have a stable fanbase, while small studios will do so by cutting costs, rushing the game and screwing over employees, something the consumer never directly sees.

Blizzard as a small studio rose above the rest through a combination of excellent management, an excellent corporate culture for game development (casual :P), efficient, and driven to produce good games. From all I can see, they mostly have carried on the same values as a large developer. In most studios, unless their is a change in leadership, this usually happens. I've never heard about a CEO becoming inexplicably evil or greedy as he got money.

Indie studios don't become awesome just through a sudden burst of ingenuity worked by developers shit stoned out of their heads on weed 24/7.

http://www.fomos.kr/board/interview/1246259236_1.jpg
(despite what Sigaty's and Dustin's appearance suggests)

Good producers, managers, and an understanding and knowledgeable CEO are just as crucial, who are constantly managing production budgets, timelines, etc. And while Blizzard may not give the outward appearance that they care about deadlines, I'm sure they work around the clock to try as hard as they can to make sure their internal deadlines are fulfilled. Their just not afraid to extend them if they need to add stuff, within reason.

I don't see a huge change in management, nor do I really see anything in congruent with current management that would make me believe Blizzard has changed its values since from when they were a "small developer". Certainly, a lot of things have evolved, and Blizzard went from less then a hundred employees to over 4900, but those core values seem in place. The thing is, its important to realize that its possible for a "good developer" working with the core ideal of producing good games to err. Blizzard isn't infallible, and their business decisions aren't either. They're going to make poor ones, or ones that will piss of the consumer.


Instead of scapegoating this whole thing on Blizzard suddenly becoming intoxicated with success and now work only to make money, which is kind of lulzy, lets scapegoat someone else if you must.

Go scapegoat change in b-net management. B-net lead producer left to make failgate london, new guy is the guy who was formerly in a lead position in Microsoft's XBL. ZOMG LIEK B-NET 2.0 IS JUST LIEK XBL.

Its a far more plausible and relevant scapegoat, at the very least.

@SlickR

What you posted:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlickR

Yes, we had such grand expectations of 20 years old technology and features who were available in bnet 1 to be in, such as chat, cross-region play and LAN, that because these NEW, UNIQUE, GRAND, UNSEEN features aren't there we are disappointed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hav0x

... I have never once seen you ever say a single good thing about StarCraft 2. Every single post of yours is negative, etc...

This is not a continuation of the locked LAN thread so leave the LAN bitching out of it. Discuss the topic of Blizzard having a monopoly or leave.

---

Maybe HAv0x was a bit harsh, but your condescending tone in your last response speaks for itself. Also, you DID start talking about something really not directly related to the thread topic. You should look at yourself before pointing fingers at others for attempting at derailing decent threads.

The topic fyi is "Does Blizzard have a Monopoly?"
The misc features cited by yourself does not relate to the topic directly by a long shot. And calling someone having a "bad life" for responding to your condescending towards another fellow poster he was trying to defend (Albeit a little harshly), doesn't change the fact that you're the original offender.

Keep this thread clean please.

ON TOPIC:

Blizzard definitely does not have a monopoly. As someone else did mention, it is their strong fanbase that fosters the big following and loyalty towards its products; and the products themselves are cause for that following.

Is Blizzard the ONLY company making RTS'es? The answer is NO. Hence, it isn't a monopoly.

Remember the ad's for CnC4 when Blizzard was was doing SC2's Zeratul v Kerrigan video promo? Where is CnC4 right now? In everybody's background dreams far away from reality.

I recently watched part of a 2v2 Multiplayer match between "top" CnC4 players on youtube. The game, first of all, looked like playing with LEGO and MECHANO with units and their parts put together in a makeshift manner. The terrain was the only redeeming factor, but it looked like an exact copycat of what you'd see on Blistering Sands, dust devils and all. The game itself was shit beyond belief gameplay-wise and graphics-wise.

SC2 is a class above. Does that make Blizzard the only company at the top? yes. Is it due to there being no competition? no. Is it due to a much much much better quality product? Absolutely. Therefore, no monopoly is to be found in Blizzard as a maker of RTS (at least).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by protoswarrior

SC2 is a class above. Does that make Blizzard the only company at the top? yes. Is it due to there being no competition? no. Is it due to a much much much better quality product? Absolutely. Therefore, no monopoly is to be found in Blizzard as a maker of RTS (at least).

---

right. noone is really disagreeing wit that i think.

the next question IMO: what are the possible implications of being alone at the top like they are?

If their business practices get under-handed, then yeah, we might have negative implications on the consumer or we may even GET a monopoly. From what we have seen so far though, Blizzard is not committed to under-handed dealing with other companies, but a rather ethically driven approach to negotiating contracts, otherwise, there would have been no reason for Blizzard to not team up with Kespa, if "it is all about ze money".

Quote:

---

What they want is the scene to be competitive, and to bring out the best players, but their mistake is thinking that this is still BW, and that the best player is the one who can handle the archaic UI the best. This isn't elitism, this is just bad judgement (or one could argue it's a difference in opinions...).

---

No, it's elitism. It's saying, "I did this, so everyone else has to or they're not worthwhile." That's why such people often talk about MBS and the like as "dumbing down" the game. Who do you "dumb down" things for? Dumbies. IE: people who aren't elite.

The elitism leads to bad judgment, but the elitism is more fundamental.

Quote:

---

I mean honestly, if we look at the core gameplay changes in SC2, every single one of them except macro mechanics is directed so a player has less expressions of skill.

---

Um, no. They are directed at removing stupid UI nonsense. Some of them may have the secondary effect of having "less expressions of skill." But the impetus to get rid of them is to remove UI-based play restrictions.

Quote:

---

Up until 2003ish, every single game was about expanding games as a means for individuals to express themselves through gameplay. Then you look at the next seven years, and I can't even think of a single game that allowed an individual to distinguish himself through game play MORE then the predecessor.

---

You say this like it's a bad thing. What happened was that game developers realized that more is not better! (at least, some of them did). There is a point at which adding more decisions is not helping to make the game better. Just like adding more pathos to a movie doesn't necessarily make it better.

There is a right place for everything. And games, particularly PC games, had been way overstepping those boundaries. That's why WoW is so successful: Blizzard looked at the defacto standard MMO (Everquest) and took out all of the stupid that had been built up around it on the presupposition that more is better.

Quote:

---

B-net lead producer left to make failgate london, new guy is the guy who was formerly in a lead position in Microsoft's XBL. ZOMG LIEK B-NET 2.0 IS JUST LIEK XBL.

---

... except that X-Box Live is actually pretty good. Even to the detriment of gaming sometimes.

Though it did take a while to get that way.

To answer the OP, no, there is no monopoly here. To posit an alternative word, when one or a few companies gain a majority share of a market, economists call this an oligopoly. Monopolistic tendencies by those at the top are not unheard of. Blizzard's inclusion of our input at any level disproves any oligopolistic or monopolistic tendencies, to an extent. Other evidence supports the existence of these tendencies when interpretted to that effect, but they support most Blizz's adherence to typical buysiness practices.

That said, we must separate SC2 and Bnet 2.0 as unique products in our posts. Not doing so confuses our points and risks making them worthless. Starcraft 2 is complete as a game. Arguing otherwise on Bnet 2 grounds makes no sense since Bnet 2 is its own product. Consider Bnet 2.0 as still in its beta phase for the time being, if you like. This is the source of my understanding of Bnet 2's status so far as why we don't have ability X. Please bear in mind that I am not discrediting or otherwise bashing anybody's post, I'm just saying we need to consistently think of this in the appropriate frame of mind.

Edit: Off-Topic: I want to comment on something: there is a limit to just how much a game or other interactive media can allow one to express oneself without bogging down the game with too many controls or too much technicality. This can be equated to/described as a critical mass point of this ability within games. The lack of any feeling of new expression in recent games is symptomatic of this critical mass point.

In order to open up new avenues appropriately, old avenues must be simplified. Removing the UI nonsense, as Nicol put it, is an example of this. There will be those of us who mourn, criticize and/or praise this decision of course. There will also be those like myself who see this as a natural response to the limits of the in-game environment. I understand how some might feel this could be elitist in SC2 terms as the macro simplification moves attention to micro, which is where competitive gaming generates its excitement. Not all of us can or choose to play a micro game, adding to this feeling. Just because we feel something may be elitist does not mean it is.

Blizz is aligning SC2 to its competitive gameing goals. The alienation of some players due to attempting any goal will always happen. The goal is to minimize the size of the alienated group. There is enough gameplay similarity between SC1 and SC2 for me at least to feel no such alienation despite my status as a lesser casual player.

Once again, I'm feeling drained but out of my deep respect for Hammy I will make what might be my last post on the matter. But, first, I need to clarify some things. I agree that we need a global ranking system and I believe it should use score as a point of comparison. This system should be on the side out of the way of casuals so that the divisions can work their magic and keep them motivated to play. However, it should not be cumbersome for those who desire to get to it.

1) Diamond league and below have no effect on pro gaming. I flip flop between 1st and 3rd in my division with a score of 1550+ (sometimes 1600+). I am so far away from the pro league and progamers that it's laughable. As far as I can tell, eSports is in no way effected by these leagues other than the ones that are working their way up to the pro league which is a necessary and temporary situation.

2) A person can keep track of their own progress. I take screenshots every now and then myself. However, I agree that there needs to be some kind of calendar which shows your progress. That's a basic necessity that should've been there since the beginning of beta since they have so many other features in your profile that aren't half as useful.

3) Score is a very reliable indicator of skill. It shows how well you compete against those of your level. I can be 1st in my division but compete against 1300's scored players which, in my leagues, are in the high 60's. Score is a much more reliable indicator of skill than Battle.net and ICCUP ranks because of how specific and easily comparible they are.

4) Being deluded into thinking that you're awesome is EXACTLY what casuals need. This division system is FOR THEM; NOT US. We are free to either make it to the pro league or use the alternative indicators such as score. Again, a global score ranking would be beneficial here.

5) I was using hyperbole to demonstrate how impersonal and unworthwhile being compared to a sea of people is to the casual and some non-progaming people. The fact that it was more than the world's popualation should be an indicator that it was not forrealz.

Quote:

---

Why the same things need to be repeated over and over again beats me

---

While I appreciate you taking the time to respond to me, most of this could have been avoided if you had known beforehand what I was saying. Some of it I have said here while other's I said in other topics. I don't expect you to remember but, if you're going to ask for clarification on my opinion and what I'm saying, you have to expect to repeat some of your own so that I have a dynamic to work off of to explain myself. I still stand by my claim that, even if none of these features are implemented, that StarCraft 2, while a disappointment by Blizzard's standards, does not at all make it steaming pile of worthless shit that some say. To say otherwise, in my opinion, is an almost immature overreaction ... unless, of course, that person objects to buying just about any game because I cannot see how they can consider StarCraft 2 shit while too many other games being worth the 60$.

.

@Nicol I agree with most of your points, we seem to be seeing two sides of the same coin...

Quote:

---

Um, no. They are directed at removing stupid UI nonsense. Some of them may have the secondary effect of having "less expressions of skill." But the impetus to get rid of them is to remove UI-based play restrictions.



You say this like it's a bad thing. What happened was that game developers realized that more is not better! (at least, some of them did). There is a point at which adding more decisions is not helping to make the game better. Just like adding more pathos to a movie doesn't necessarily make it better.

There is a right place for everything. And games, particularly PC games, had been way overstepping those boundaries. That's why WoW is so successful: Blizzard looked at the defacto standard MMO (Everquest) and took out all of the stupid that had been built up around it on the presupposition that more is better.

---

Individually, I agree with both. I agree that removing UI and technical restrictions of a 1998 game is a good thing. I also agree that perhaps at a certain the complexity and degrees of control in a game need a stopping point. After all, as wiser men have said, paraphrased, a perfect stimulation is perfectly complex, and thus, completely useless.

But don't you see the issue when both these elements are combined with disregard for each other? If SC2 removes UI restrictions without expanding gameplay complexity to an equal degree, while the intentions might have been well meant, the end result is a game that is objectively less complex.

If you apply progress to one end of the spectrum, modernizing controls and UI, which results in more accessibility, in order to achieve the same mechanical complexity, you have to apply an equal amount of development to the other end of the spectrum, or making mechanical systems more complex is a meaningful way.

But they didn't do the second one because the current dynamic of the game industry doesn't emphasize those values. The issue isn't the lack of progress, its actually quite the opposite, progress has been going full force towards accessibility and streamlining, but has completely stopped in complexity and depth. Solely increasing depth leads to unplayable spreadsheet pseudo-games, their needs to be a balance between the two different drives of progress. Since one side of it has almost stopped altogether, hardcore gamers try to maintain the current level of complexity by impeding the other.

My core point is it isn't strictly anti-progress techno-luddite mentality. Its more concerned with direction of progress then progress itself.

Quote:

---

... except that X-Box Live is actually pretty good. Even to the detriment of gaming sometimes. Though it did take a while to get that way.

---

Well the problem is that B-net 2.0 isn't like XBL in the way that it isn't a new platform, its building for an existing one, and Its building off established expectations. So the management models and production values that applied to one can be messy for the other.

Not to mention the values of XBL, while in many cases admirably, don't apply or aren't well received by most PC gamers, especially the SC hardcore fanbase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by newcomplex

You're right, Blizzard does need to prioritize. Thats what they've utterly failed at here. You act as if Blizzard ran such a tight schedule that they were incapable of having Chat before release and still have a functional game.

---

I think, at this point, the case is yes.

Also, I consider having a working AMM a much higher priority than a frill like chat. AMM works, but it's nowhere near perfect, and there's dozens of problems to fix there. I'd rather they spend time on that rather than ... chat. Or Facebook, for that matter ;)

Quote:

---

That isn't a plausible with a company with Blizzards size and funding.

---

I disagree. While Blizzard has lots of funding, they're not that big. They have a lot of employees, but many are tied up pushing paper, doing other corporate stuff, and maintaining WoW servers.

Blizzard couldn't even push StarCraft: Ghost through due to a lack of designers (or designer time, as the case may be). Blizzard delayed battle.net 2.0 by at least six months. I don't know if Blizzard greatly underestimated how much work the project would take, or if there's not enough designers, but at this point, I don't see how they can have chat functionality by July 27th.

Quote:

---

They simply did not value things like Chat channels from the beginning of the project, they did not plan it into the core infrastructure. Perhaps as of four months ago, the project was already so near completion that chat channels could not have been made on time for release. But the fact is it simply was never a core objective to have it on time for release.

---

Perhaps that is the case. But I'm not seeing chat as a priority. How can it be as important as AMM? Or a bunch of important things that Blizzard has failed at, for that matter?

When Blizzard made their decision not to include chat, it could have been because:

a) They didn't know how important the community considers chat. (And we don't really know; it could just be the squeaky wheel analogy.)
b) The knew they had limited resources, and decided not to bother, as they were more interested in things like AMM.
b ii) Which, of course, makes the anger against Facebook make a lot of sense. I'm sure if there's one feature less important than chat, Facebook is it.

Quote:

---

Battle.net 2.0 has its own team. It doesn't interfere with anything besides the featrues of b-net 2.0 itself. They've been constantly recruiting designers and programmers for the two years of its existence, and the fact is, if Chat channels isn't alongside custom games or matchmaking, it simply wasn't a core priority. For a lot of players. especially those who enjoy the community aspect of Starcraft 1, such as the community revolving around esports, not including chat channels would be similar to not including custom games lists.

And as consumers, we have every bit the right to rage and at how chat channels was not a priority.

---

You have the right to complain. Rage is going way over the top. It's not a lack of functionality (eg it doesn't prevent you from playing, or even setting up tournaments), it's a lack of a feature. There are more important features for Blizzard to deal with given their limited (yes, I'll use that word) resources and now time.

Quote:

---

They aren't luddites at the least because they aren't opposed to change. Their opposed to the current dynamics of the game industry that cause every single change to cause the game to require less mechanical and strategic skills on behalf of the player.

---

I can hardly see automine as making the game require fewer strategic skills (or any other UI change). And in a competitive game, rather than a you vs computer only game, mechanical skill shouldn't be that big an issue. Being able to outplan, outsmart, outstrategize, outmacro and outmicro your opponent is much more important.

Quote:

---

I mean honestly, if we look at the core gameplay changes in SC2, every single one of them except macro mechanics is directed so a player has less expressions of skill. Because thats what they were all about.

---

Those changes involved less fighting with the interface. I guess I'm seeing the competitive aspect of playing StarCraft and StarCraft II as being far more important than being better at the most boring part of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by newcomplex

But don't you see the issue when both these elements are combined with disregard for each other? If SC2 removes UI restrictions without expanding gameplay complexity to an equal degree, while the intentions might have been well meant, the end result is a game that is objectively less complex.

---

David Kim, balance designer, complained about this. I don't think he mentioned the UI directly, but he complained the macro game wasn't deep enough previously. He said that Blizzard kept adding stuff to macro but he and other (ex?) progamers kept saying it was "too easy". This was before the introduction of the first macro mechanic.

Of course, Blizzard had to not only come up with a good macro mechanic, they had to come up with one you didn't have to use (since it's almost certainly going to be too boring to use for a certain segment of the population, probably highly represented in the lower leagues). At least for the latter, they've succeeded; I can win games with little to no use of the mechanics, and for the former... well, I'm not a progamer or anything close to it, but at least the terran one is decent, and the protoss one has so many options (use on any building, many of which have multiple functions; about the only things you can't use it on are assimilators, photon cannons and pylons).

If you had to hire someone from a console platform Sony's PSN folks would be the way to go considering it's all free, and the subscription service they are releasing actually makes sense in terms of content and price, the key is that they keep all the main goodies free for everybody.

Keeping a small development team is good for keeping the project on track and up to a certain quality. It's bad for meeting deadlines. We have to make a choice. Can't have your cake and eat it too :D

Regarding the monopoly topic, Blizzard has done only 3 types of games: RTS (SC, WC), MMO(WoW) and action-RPG(Diablo). I wouldn't call this a monopoly over gaming, console games are a huge part of the industry. Not surprisingly the genres which Blizzard is good at are not really good for consoles (except action-RPG), yet.

Blizzard does not make first/third person shooters (ghost was not released), which are a huge part of gaming. WoW might be the most successful MMO out there but definitely not the only one.

My personal favorites besides Blizzard are Valve, Bioware and Rockstar. Valve are very close to Blizzard in terms of quality and community involvement imo and have done awesome games. Bioware is all about the traditional RPG and Rockstar is the king of open world games.

I have my doubts about the future though. The Activision-Blizzard merger and Bioware being bought by EA do not instill confidence. I can only hope for the best.

Would a Valve, Bioware or Rockstar-made Starcraft Clone make Blizzard change their strategy to something closer to what hardcore fans demand?

No, because they would suck. Blizzard is my favorite developer but they will never make a Valve class FPS. Likewise for the developers you mentioned.

@SebiAlex: TC meant a monopoly over RTS :D:D:D

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TychusFindlay

No, because they would suck. Blizzard is my favorite developer but they will never make a Valve class FPS. Likewise for the developers you mentioned.

@SebiAlex: TC meant a monopoly over RTS :D:D:D

.

---

Yeah, RTS wise they make the best games, but that's not to say that I didn't enjoy Age of Empires or Dawn of War. Even C&C3 was decent. They all have their flavor, but none of them come close to the story and characters of SC. SC has both character and plot development and as seen with TV shows and novels, that's what brings most people back for future episodes/books. I find this aspect lacking in most if not every other RTS.

Now regarding Blizzard doing other genres, I wouldn't mind it. I think a third person shooter like Ghost, if done right can be all kinds of awesome.

A Blizzard-made FPS (imagine one with a Bizzard-made editor) would be kick ass.

But on that note, IF Blizzard would be trying to break into that market I think they would not be doing it with the same half-baked manner like what I think they are doing for SC2. They'd be full force on that.

Don, are you speaking regarding the SC2: Wings of Liberty project being "half-baked" or the Battle.net 2.0 project being so? It's important to clarify that so we understand your point of view buddy :)

Yeah, that's a very crucial distinction. I could agree with some of the Battle.net decisions being half-baked while some of them being purely idiotic. I wouldn't agree, however, with the melee being half-baked. I strongly believe that when it's all said and done StarCraft 2 will be a worthy successor to StarCraft: Brood War.

The only thing Blizzard has a monopoly on is our hearts.

</3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gifted

Don, are you speaking regarding the SC2: Wings of Liberty project being "half-baked" or the Battle.net 2.0 project being so? It's important to clarify that so we understand your point of view buddy :)

---

Half baked in the sense that we all know just how good Blizzard can make a cake. I'm not insulting SC2, I think its a good product. (i am buying it, ive pre-ordered!)

It just seems that they are deliberately withholding some really tasty cream and icing.

To make myself even more clear, I'm saying if there was someone else baking another cake, Blizz wont be holding on to this tasty tasty icing. (hoping I can pre-order something else, something with icing!)

I am clearly wrong in using the term "monopoly"... I'm trying to say there is no "Infamous" to Blizzard's "Prototype"... No "Dante's Inferno" to Blizzard's "God of War".


.

Considering that, in my opinion, StarCraft 2 is better right now than StarCraft was in the early stages, I doubt they're holding back teh icing :D

Quote:

---

If you apply progress to one end of the spectrum, modernizing controls and UI, which results in more accessibility, in order to achieve the same mechanical complexity, you have to apply an equal amount of development to the other end of the spectrum, or making mechanical systems more complex is a meaningful way.

But they didn't do the second one because the current dynamic of the game industry doesn't emphasize those values.

---

I don't buy that. Blizzard does what Blizzard wants, just like any other game development company. Every game developer is responsible for their own product, based on their own values.

If you, for example, don't care about mechanical complexity, then it is an irrelevant axis for development. Take Super Smash Bros Brawl. They removed wave dashing because, for the game that they are creating, it serves no purpose. Indeed, it works against their purposes; it gives some people who happened to read a webpage an advantage over people who did not. All the NerdRage in the world won't change this simple fact: they aren't making a mechanically complex game.

For Blizzard's case, it's not a matter of not caring. They simply didn't see it until later in development. Since about early-mid 2008, when they implemented the first macro mechanics, Blizzard has been attempting to add complexity back to the game. Some of their ideas have been good (Proton Charge) and some... not so much (Spawn Larva). But they have made an attempt.

The most Blizzard is guilty of is not noticing the problem until relatively late in development. If they had started SC2's development with these things in mind, we might have seen some different unit mixtures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by don

Half baked in the sense that we all know just how good Blizzard can make a cake. I'm not insulting SC2, I think its a good product. (i am buying it, ive pre-ordered!)

It just seems that they are deliberately withholding some really tasty cream and icing.

To make myself even more clear, I'm saying if there was someone else baking another cake, Blizz wont be holding on to this tasty tasty icing. (hoping I can pre-order something else, something with icing!)

I am clearly wrong in using the term "monopoly"... I'm trying to say there is no "Infamous" to Blizzard's "Prototype"... No "Dante's Inferno" to Blizzard's "God of War".

---

I think there's confusion still and I think it's because you misunderstood the question. I find that TOO many people think that B.net 2.0 is the same as StarCraft II, when it's not. I have no questions regarding your thoughts on the term "half-baked". I'm just curious which of the two products do you feel is actually half-baked?

Hidden Content:

If I'm reading what you are writing, it seems like you're talking about StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty itself being the answer because of the examples you used. If this is true, I think that it's false. I think that C&C4, Supreme Comander 2, Dawn of War 2, etc are competitors in the genre. Are they major competitors? Yes and no. It all depends on what the customer and the scope you are looking at. If you continue comparing it in terms of genre, it's safe to say that other games might not be up to par on the level of quality, but some people feel that SC2's quality is less than what they prefer in other games.

If you want to take the angle of eSports, then you have to change the scope to allow for any other esport that's being observed. You can look at Counterstrike, WoW, WC3, UT, etc and even to a slew of Korean games that I don't have the time to research... they don't have a monopoly.

But I'm pretty much repeating what others have said. Just in my own "wall of texty" way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

I don't buy that. Blizzard does what Blizzard wants, just like any other game development company. Every game developer is responsible for their own product, based on their own values.

If you, for example, don't care about mechanical complexity, then it is an irrelevant axis for development. Take Super Smash Bros Brawl. They removed wave dashing because, for the game that they are creating, it serves no purpose. Indeed, it works against their purposes; it gives some people who happened to read a webpage an advantage over people who did not. All the NerdRage in the world won't change this simple fact: they aren't making a mechanically complex game.

For Blizzard's case, it's not a matter of not caring. They simply didn't see it until later in development. Since about early-mid 2008, when they implemented the first macro mechanics, Blizzard has been attempting to add complexity back to the game. Some of their ideas have been good (Proton Charge) and some... not so much (Spawn Larva). But they have made an attempt.

The most Blizzard is guilty of is not noticing the problem until relatively late in development. If they had started SC2's development with these things in mind, we might have seen some different unit mixtures.

---

Well said, I 90% agree with it, and the remaining parts I feel is trivial clarification I can't say because it involves information that's not publically released. Even the last 10% is aligned with you even. I'm quoting you to specifically bring attention to your post if people chose to skip over it... it deserves attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

Some of their ideas have been good (Spawn Larva) and some... not so much (Proton Charge).

---

Fixed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MulletBen

Fixed

---

Amen broha.

I forgot about this thread lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kimera757

I think, at this point, the case is yes.

---

I totally agree with you. But at a prior point at the conceptualization of B-net 2.0, if it was planned and produced differently, Chat channels could have made release with no major losses in other categories. Which is why its crucial we criticize them for that decision.

Quote:

---

I disagree. While Blizzard has lots of funding, they're not that big. They have a lot of employees, but many are tied up pushing paper, doing other corporate stuff, and maintaining WoW servers.

Blizzard couldn't even push StarCraft: Ghost through due to a lack of designers (or designer time, as the case may be). Blizzard delayed battle.net 2.0 by at least six months. I don't know if Blizzard greatly underestimated how much work the project would take, or if there's not enough designers, but at this point, I don't see how they can have chat functionality by July 27th.



Perhaps that is the case. But I'm not seeing chat as a priority. How can it be as important as AMM? Or a bunch of important things that Blizzard has failed at, for that matter?

When Blizzard made their decision not to include chat, it could have been because:

a) They didn't know how important the community considers chat. (And we don't really know; it could just be the squeaky wheel analogy.)
b) The knew they had limited resources, and decided not to bother, as they were more interested in things like AMM.
b ii) Which, of course, makes the anger against Facebook make a lot of sense. I'm sure if there's one feature less important than chat, Facebook is it.

---

Well, most of the things I've said have been backed by both fact and personal experience, so I'll argue them as facts. This is probably the only subjective issue, and I'll concede that. I never worked at Blizzard or a large game company, and the few people who have aren't in high enough positions (One guy actually, and we're not in super close contact) isn't really heavily involved in these decisions.

The truth is probably a combination of A and B. I'd argue that as a fact. I know that it never is a black and white issue when you're such a large company. Whether its closer to A or to B is the subjective part. And I think to the consumer, its irrelevant. Ultimately, when you're such a large company, you have the resources to please the consumer on any reasonable issue they demand, if not presently, but at the very least make it an outset goal for the next project. And it isn't the job of the consumer to determine the logistics of their demands as long as it is within reason (chat channels certainly are).

Quote:

---

You have the right to complain. Rage is going way over the top. It's not a lack of functionality (eg it doesn't prevent you from playing, or even setting up tournaments), it's a lack of a feature. There are more important features for Blizzard to deal with given their limited (yes, I'll use that word) resources and now time.

---

Yes and no. Rage is an expression of passion, and if you're trying to get widespread support, an argument without passion is impossible. The point is to remain objective despite the passion in your argument.

Quote:

---

I can hardly see automine as making the game require fewer strategic skills (or any other UI change). And in a competitive game, rather than a you vs computer only game, mechanical skill shouldn't be that big an issue. Being able to outplan, outsmart, outstrategize, outmacro and outmicro your opponent is much more important.



Those changes involved less fighting with the interface. I guess I'm seeing the competitive aspect of playing StarCraft and StarCraft II as being far more important than being better at the most boring part of the game.



David Kim, balance designer, complained about this. I don't think he mentioned the UI directly, but he complained the macro game wasn't deep enough previously. He said that Blizzard kept adding stuff to macro but he and other (ex?) progamers kept saying it was "too easy". This was before the introduction of the first macro mechanic.

Of course, Blizzard had to not only come up with a good macro mechanic, they had to come up with one you didn't have to use (since it's almost certainly going to be too boring to use for a certain segment of the population, probably highly represented in the lower leagues). At least for the latter, they've succeeded; I can win games with little to no use of the mechanics, and for the former... well, I'm not a progamer or anything close to it, but at least the terran one is decent, and the protoss one has so many options (use on any building, many of which have multiple functions; about the only things you can't use it on are assimilators, photon cannons and pylons).

---

I'd never argue that they make the games strategy less complex. But Starcraft 2 is not a pure strategy game. Real time strategy can never be. Reactions will always be a factor. SC1 was a deep experience because the mechanics (A combination of reactions and tactics and familiarity) could supplement the flawed strategic portions of the game.

The strategy remained the same however, so as mechanics were withdrawn, so was depth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

I don't buy that. Blizzard does what Blizzard wants, just like any other game development company. Every game developer is responsible for their own product, based on their own values.

If you, for example, don't care about mechanical complexity, then it is an irrelevant axis for development. Take Super Smash Bros Brawl. They removed wave dashing because, for the game that they are creating, it serves no purpose. Indeed, it works against their purposes; it gives some people who happened to read a webpage an advantage over people who did not. All the NerdRage in the world won't change this simple fact: they aren't making a mechanically complex game.

For Blizzard's case, it's not a matter of not caring. They simply didn't see it until later in development. Since about early-mid 2008, when they implemented the first macro mechanics, Blizzard has been attempting to add complexity back to the game. Some of their ideas have been good (Proton Charge) and some... not so much (Spawn Larva). But they have made an attempt.

The most Blizzard is guilty of is not noticing the problem until relatively late in development. If they had started SC2's development with these things in mind, we might have seen some different unit mixtures.

---

Ehm. When did I say "care"? Thats not what I'm argueing. And really, the reasoning is irrelevant.

We can all agree that Starcraft 2 is less mechanically complex. You can rephrase that to "better UI", ok, but that doesn't change it. I'm not saying thats inherently bad in itself. Then the TL crowd says thats bad. You can't really argue that. No, not that "its bad", I mean, that TL thinks it is.

And that has reasons. Those reasons are that Blizzard makes a game they think is the "best". The "best" is a subjective term that is constructed out of cultural values. The current mainstream video game culture does not emphasize depth.

I'm not making any judgements upon those statements. Think of them as independent statements. And taken as a whole by TL.net, its what causes TL.net to appear somewhat like a bunch of luddites.

I don't entirely agree. I partly agree. But my opinion isn't on trial here, I recognize its an opinion. I'm just presenting a set of conditions that caused TLnet to think the way they do.