Does Blizzard have a Monopoly?

[Hammy]

-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:

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 ). 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.

[TheEconomist]

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

.

[Hammy]

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.

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 :/

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^^

[Kimera757]

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).

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.

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.

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.)

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".)

[Hammy]

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^^

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.

[Kimera757]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[newcomplex]

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.

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.

[newcomplex]

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.

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).

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.

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.


(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.

[protoswarrior]

@SlickR

What you posted:

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.

... 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).

[Todie]

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?