Originally posted by shellshockro

Great...Gaming is turning into more of a social club. Just what the world needs, more places for all you twats to tweet.

Agreed.

Originally posted by pragues

Originally posted by Interesting

Blizzard has nothing to do with that.

Its MAJORLY  Activision. Thomas and Bobby.

So that's why Morhaime refused to put a 2011 launching date on Diablo 3 and thus the Activision Blizzard stock lost 8.5 % in one (!) day ... because Bobby stood naked with empty 2011 hands before his stock holders.

The same thing happend in 2009 with the postponing of SC2 by more than 6 months and Morhaime simply said "No" to Kotick.

These facts alone counters all your theories: within the group Blizzard is the big money maker. And stock holders know it.

The decision we are trying to talk about is wether Activision has the last word on wether the game will be a sandbox or the next thing in social gaming.

There is absolutelly no argument you can come up saying Blizzard could decide to make a sandbox. No. Blizzard, Morhaine would not be allowed by Bobby or Thomas to do a sandbox MMO. He would just get fired, someone would take his place and do exactly what Activision tells him. GOT IT?

Mentioning or not mentioning D3 on 2011 bears no significance close to WHO ULTIMATELLY DECIDES IF ITS GOING TO BE DESIGNED AS A SANDBOX OR "SOCIAL GAMING MMO". Activision decides it.

Whats the fuck is your problem?

Originally posted by Interesting

Originally posted by pragues

Originally posted by Interesting

Blizzard has nothing to do with that.

Its MAJORLY  Activision. Thomas and Bobby.

So that's why Morhaime refused to put a 2011 launching date on Diablo 3 and thus the Activision Blizzard stock lost 8.5 % in one (!) day ... because Bobby stood naked with empty 2011 hands before his stock holders.

The same thing happend in 2009 with the postponing of SC2 by more than 6 months and Morhaime simply said "No" to Kotick.

These facts alone counters all your theories: within the group Blizzard is the big money maker. And stock holders know it.

 

The decision we are trying to talk about is wether Activision has the last word on wether the game will be a sandbox or the next thing in social gaming.

There is absolutelly no argument you can come up saying Blizzard could decide to make a sandbox. No. Blizzard, Morhaine would not be allowed by Bobby or Thomas to do a sandbox MMO. He would just get fired, someone would take his place and do exactly what Activision tells him. GOT IT?

Mentioning or not mentioning D3 on 2011 bears no significance close to WHO ULTIMATELLY DECIDES IF ITS GOING TO BE DESIGNED AS A SANDBOX OR "SOCIAL GAMING MMO". Activision decides it.

Whats the fuck is your problem?

You're comparing apples to oranges. All he said is that Blizzard is a big stake in Activision, that does not mean he said he knew whether Activision had the last word.

At least they know that "more of the same" is killing the MMO genre.

The "social gaming" worries me though. I don't care if I play against friends or not, I really don't.

Originally posted by Interesting

Originally posted by pragues

Originally posted by Interesting

Blizzard has nothing to do with that.

Its MAJORLY  Activision. Thomas and Bobby.

So that's why Morhaime refused to put a 2011 launching date on Diablo 3 and thus the Activision Blizzard stock lost 8.5 % in one (!) day ... because Bobby stood naked with empty 2011 hands before his stock holders.

The same thing happend in 2009 with the postponing of SC2 by more than 6 months and Morhaime simply said "No" to Kotick.

These facts alone counters all your theories: within the group Blizzard is the big money maker. And stock holders know it.

 

The decision we are trying to talk about is wether Activision has the last word on wether the game will be a sandbox or the next thing in social gaming.

There is absolutelly no argument you can come up saying Blizzard could decide to make a sandbox. No. Blizzard, Morhaine would not be allowed by Bobby or Thomas to do a sandbox MMO. He would just get fired, someone would take his place and do exactly what Activision tells him. GOT IT?

Mentioning or not mentioning D3 on 2011 bears no significance close to WHO ULTIMATELLY DECIDES IF ITS GOING TO BE DESIGNED AS A SANDBOX OR "SOCIAL GAMING MMO". Activision decides it.

Whats the fuck is your problem?

Do you know the difference between coaches and star players? Coaches do not play the game, they direct from the sidelines. This is Activision. Star players on the other hand are the key to actually playing the game. This is Blizzard. Coaches cannnot make a star player, he can only unlock the potential that's already there. You know why? Because only that player knows his limits. The key to a good coach is knowing when to push and when not to push your star player. And you draw your conclusion from communicating with him and reading his performance.

Do you really thing Phil Jackson would tell Jordan he has to play defense because that's what seems to be happening with other teams? That would be retarded because other teams are playing defense to stop Jordan's offense. Get it? Blizzard already has a killer offense so they don't need to be played as hard. They can sit out this quarter (and make whatever the hell they want to make) because they have such a comfortable lead and coach Activision can get one of his other players (development teams) to close the game.

And to think that Activision would be so stupid to allow one of their star players to get tanked because he refused to make Farmville 2? Oh please, that's like Phil wanting to trade Jordan because he doesn't do what he wants him to do when playing. When the bottom line is: Who's gettin you championships?

Originally posted by HensenLiros

And what exactly do hardcore gamers have to do with Blizzard? I'm confused.

Yeh i wonder myself also when i read this topic lol.

WoW hardcore? Am i missing something with its cartoonish look its super casual below avarage difficulty and fluffy content gaming world hehe.

"To break the mold, sometimes you have to start over,"

To break the mold? I lol'd.. :) Watch out blizz, you might hurt yourself.

I have a facebook account. I thought I'd try one of the facebook games. Farming sounded boring so I tried Vampire Wars.

I played for a few times, maybe 4 or 5, and that's about as much as it could keep my interest.

It's not like an MMO. you just click on some things, the game tells you what happened, then you can play some more if you buy credits, or wait to play again tomorrow.

You click attack, and you get a message "you killed so and so". Or "so nad so defeated you".

Then you collect crap, like batwings, fangs, and whatnot, that increases your stats.

It's boring as crap. I don't see how anyone can play those.

It's not like chatting with people, and grouping up, and killing mobs and doing quests in a 3d environment.

I don't think social games are ever gonna replace 3d mmos.

Originally posted by nerovipus32

of course blizzard are not going to come out and say "oh well we think our new mmo will kill wow", they are going to say they can co-exist so that they can hold onto as many wow subscribers as possible until they release their next mmo. giving people an impression that their full attention is not on wow would make people wonder about the future of their subscriptions. you can clearly see wow's quality slipping in the last 6 months or so, the original wow staff are no longer developing content for wow.

Sadly the quality of WoW has been slipping since vanilla WoW. :(

Give your best shot blizz, Anet is my company now... gl.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

I don't think social games are ever gonna replace 3d mmos.

They'll never replace them, but they will exist along side them.  Those dinky little games are fine for people who aren't looking for something as involved as a full blown MMO.  They're great for folks looking for a game with the visceral feel of a crossword puzzle, but with some kind of persistence.  Ideal for those 20 minute bus rides to and from work each day.

Personally, I'd rather stick forks in my eyes than play anything born of "social media", but I'm the minority.

Originally posted by Ramonski7

Originally posted by Interesting

Originally posted by pragues

Originally posted by Interesting

Blizzard has nothing to do with that.

Its MAJORLY  Activision. Thomas and Bobby.

So that's why Morhaime refused to put a 2011 launching date on Diablo 3 and thus the Activision Blizzard stock lost 8.5 % in one (!) day ... because Bobby stood naked with empty 2011 hands before his stock holders.

The same thing happend in 2009 with the postponing of SC2 by more than 6 months and Morhaime simply said "No" to Kotick.

These facts alone counters all your theories: within the group Blizzard is the big money maker. And stock holders know it.

 

The decision we are trying to talk about is wether Activision has the last word on wether the game will be a sandbox or the next thing in social gaming.

There is absolutelly no argument you can come up saying Blizzard could decide to make a sandbox. No. Blizzard, Morhaine would not be allowed by Bobby or Thomas to do a sandbox MMO. He would just get fired, someone would take his place and do exactly what Activision tells him. GOT IT?

Mentioning or not mentioning D3 on 2011 bears no significance close to WHO ULTIMATELLY DECIDES IF ITS GOING TO BE DESIGNED AS A SANDBOX OR "SOCIAL GAMING MMO". Activision decides it.

Whats the fuck is your problem?

Do you know the difference between coaches and star players? Coaches do not play the game, they direct from the sidelines. This is Activision. Star players on the other hand are the key to actually playing the game. This is Blizzard. Coaches cannnot make a star player, he can only unlock the potential that's already there. You know why? Because only that player knows his limits. The key to a good coach is knowing when to push and when not to push your star player. And you draw your conclusion from communicating with him and reading his performance.

 

Do you really thing Phil Jackson would tell Jordan he has to play defense because that's what seems to be happening with other teams? That would be retarded because other teams are playing defense to stop Jordan's offense. Get it? Blizzard already has a killer offense so they don't need to be played as hard. They can sit out this quarter (and make whatever the hell they want to make) because they have such a comfortable lead and coach Activision can get one of his other players (development teams) to close the game.

 

And to think that Activision would be so stupid to allow one of their star players to get tanked because he refused to make Farmville 2? Oh please, that's like Phil wanting to trade Jordan because he doesn't do what he wants him to do when playing. When the bottom line is: Who's gettin you championships?

Coaches can also ruin "star players" by giving them terrible advice, and ruining their morale by berating them when they don't do what the coach wants.

Besides, sports is one thing, business is another. Activision and Kotick are slaves to their stockholders. Some people at Blizzard may try to hold out to make the game better before release, or to try to refuse shifts in game design philosophies, but at the end of the day Blizzard is stil la corporation that is beholden to it's shareholders, and Activision and Kotick are now tied at the hip to Blizzard when it comes to financial results, which means they will do everything within their power to force Blizzard to shift to their money grabbing philosophies, up to and including getting the board of directors involved in forcign Blizzard to kowtow to Activision.

It's already been happening since the merger. The drop in quality due to rushed production, addition of more and more RMT, endless regurgitation of more of the same "franchise" hits... Activision has it's greedy little fingers pulling strings in Blizzard.

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by nerovipus32

of course blizzard are not going to come out and say "oh well we think our new mmo will kill wow", they are going to say they can co-exist so that they can hold onto as many wow subscribers as possible until they release their next mmo. giving people an impression that their full attention is not on wow would make people wonder about the future of their subscriptions. you can clearly see wow's quality slipping in the last 6 months or so, the original wow staff are no longer developing content for wow.

Releasing a new Wow would just be stupid. They already have the customers, they could just merge the game with a new engine for less money instead.

No they are aiming for new players this time, competing with yourself is stupid and Blizzard are many things but they are not stupid and really know how to get new players.

 SOE has already paved the way with Station Pass.  Blizzard will end up putting all of their P2P games into a package deal to reduce inter-game competition.  The framework is already in place with Blizzard.net.

Originally posted by Ceridith

Originally posted by Ramonski7

Originally posted by Interesting

Originally posted by pragues

Originally posted by Interesting

Blizzard has nothing to do with that.

Its MAJORLY  Activision. Thomas and Bobby.

So that's why Morhaime refused to put a 2011 launching date on Diablo 3 and thus the Activision Blizzard stock lost 8.5 % in one (!) day ... because Bobby stood naked with empty 2011 hands before his stock holders.

The same thing happend in 2009 with the postponing of SC2 by more than 6 months and Morhaime simply said "No" to Kotick.

These facts alone counters all your theories: within the group Blizzard is the big money maker. And stock holders know it.

 

The decision we are trying to talk about is wether Activision has the last word on wether the game will be a sandbox or the next thing in social gaming.

There is absolutelly no argument you can come up saying Blizzard could decide to make a sandbox. No. Blizzard, Morhaine would not be allowed by Bobby or Thomas to do a sandbox MMO. He would just get fired, someone would take his place and do exactly what Activision tells him. GOT IT?

Mentioning or not mentioning D3 on 2011 bears no significance close to WHO ULTIMATELLY DECIDES IF ITS GOING TO BE DESIGNED AS A SANDBOX OR "SOCIAL GAMING MMO". Activision decides it.

Whats the fuck is your problem?

Do you know the difference between coaches and star players? Coaches do not play the game, they direct from the sidelines. This is Activision. Star players on the other hand are the key to actually playing the game. This is Blizzard. Coaches cannnot make a star player, he can only unlock the potential that's already there. You know why? Because only that player knows his limits. The key to a good coach is knowing when to push and when not to push your star player. And you draw your conclusion from communicating with him and reading his performance.

 

Do you really thing Phil Jackson would tell Jordan he has to play defense because that's what seems to be happening with other teams? That would be retarded because other teams are playing defense to stop Jordan's offense. Get it? Blizzard already has a killer offense so they don't need to be played as hard. They can sit out this quarter (and make whatever the hell they want to make) because they have such a comfortable lead and coach Activision can get one of his other players (development teams) to close the game.

 

And to think that Activision would be so stupid to allow one of their star players to get tanked because he refused to make Farmville 2? Oh please, that's like Phil wanting to trade Jordan because he doesn't do what he wants him to do when playing. When the bottom line is: Who's gettin you championships?

Coaches can also ruin "star players" by giving them terrible advice, and ruining their morale by berating them when they don't do what the coach wants.

Besides, sports is one thing, business is another. Activision and Kotick are slaves to their stockholders. Some people at Blizzard may try to hold out to make the game better before release, or to try to refuse shifts in game design philosophies, but at the end of the day Blizzard is stil la corporation that is beholden to it's shareholders, and Activision and Kotick are now tied at the hip to Blizzard when it comes to financial results, which means they will do everything within their power to force Blizzard to shift to their money grabbing philosophies, up to and including getting the board of directors involved in forcign Blizzard to kowtow to Activision.

It's already been happening since the merger. The drop in quality due to rushed production, addition of more and more RMT, endless regurgitation of more of the same "franchise" hits... Activision has it's greedy little fingers pulling strings in Blizzard.

Buut that's not happening right now because Blizzard is still the Jordan of the mmo industry. So guess what? Stockholders are looking at Blizzard to carry the "team" during crunchtime (between Activision releases). And like someone else pointed out already: Act/Bli stock took a dip when Activision pushed for a 2011 D3 release and Blizzard said "No, it's ain't gonna happen." It's because the person who brings home the bacon will always decide who gonna eat first.

I called this 2 years ago. And everyone laughed. Now people are shocked? Blizzard's next MMO will target social gamers (ie. Farmville players etc). 70 million people play it. That's a much bigger pie than 12 million. I'm still sticking to my guns.

Their next MMO is not targeting any of you people here. It will target people that are not here. People that are at places like Facebook, Twitter, etc. Hence their saying all along: "Our new MMO will not compete with World of Warcraft". Because its a completely different target audience.

I imagine their next MMO to be along the lines of an online version of the SIMs. Pure social. Probably no combat even.

social media boosted wow

if you dont have webcam you cant play and everybody can watch you live when you are close enough

what? theres little Johnny with sad face bacause heard about new nerf but he is writing how he is rolling on the floor laughing,hey theres Matilda crying because she didnt get epic wand because bad warrior rolled need,but she emotes how shes dancing.theres master  PKr  XxTurbokilllerMadxX ,hes wearing a mask because he is so evil ,he writes curses all the time because he is pure evil and when you hit him then his camera turns off (black screen of death),,and hey theres me,laughing all the time cos game is seriously nuts and im writing how dirge is so last season.

my vision about blizzards plans.

i would play it.