Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Blizzard to restore Classics: Warcraft III Reforged

1282931333448

Posts

  • TelMarineTelMarine Registered User regular
    Enigmedic wrote: »
    Warframe is like perfect. You can trade for the digital currency with other players for regular farmable items. They dangle those sweet 50% and rarely 75% off the price of digital currency prices. And then you can also just pay for the new stuff for a short while if you got the phat stacks, but the new stuff doesnt just make you god mode, its largely cosmetic with some quality of life stuff. So nobody cares if you farm a new frame or bought it.

    And currently there are probably execs shitting themselves because they just lost bungie, cod was kinda meh, and blizzard is just kinda coasting downhill for the moment. I hope they have some new shit to announce soon or theyre gonna be in a world of hurt.

    Cue sound sample from Starcraft 2 Marauder.

    3ds: 4983-4935-4575
    Elvenshae
  • RickRudeRickRude Registered User regular
    The idea of.vanilla Wow strangely excites me. I started a few months before BC dropped. Wasn't 60 too long before it hit, remember some pub AQ 20 events before it hit. I was hooked on this game for a long while, but dipped out at the expansion after BC. Spent way too much time in that game, feel like all my free time over a year or 2

  • TheStigTheStig Registered User regular
    Yeah, I'm somehow really excited for vanilla WoW even though I'm positive I'll be like "man I don't have the time for this shit" like 2 weeks in.

    bnet: TheStig#1787 Steam: TheStig
    Warlock82
  • November FifthNovember Fifth Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Eh you can't put trolls on comments with the whole fandom. Its like vocal fans on comment threads are like a small % of a small %.

    Blizzard 100% owns the fan backlash, as they had previous to that announcement been doing bare min work with Diablo 3, while PoE got quality update after quality update. And then when they announce something its a mobile game made my an infamous company for micros.

    I'm still amazed that PoE was made by a 25 man team with a brand new title and is still top 10 on Steam and Twitch five years after release.

    Diablo III is a sequel to one of the best selling PC games of the time, with hundreds of developers and support staff. It has hardly seen any development since 2014 and has basically disappeared off the radar.

    autono-wally, erotibot300
  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited January 15
    Enigmedic wrote: »
    I still dont get why people keep praising PoE though. Every time ive tried it, it’s been super slow and unresponsive. Like click the fireball or wand button wait 1-2s then the animation starts. And thats connecting to a server with 30ms. Blizzard might handle a lot of things like shit, but at least things are snappy. Ive never liked PoE though.

    This is actually part of why the way blizzard treated Diablo 3 is so infuriating. Diablo 3 undeniably feels much better to play than PoE, it is snappier. The response is faster. It doesn't lag when you hit 50 mobs at the same time. It doesn't feel clunky to play.

    And yet Blizzard couldn't bring themselves to properly support the game. They starved D3 for years and years. A trickle feed of minor updates, and a lot of their "updates" are straight up bullshit "okay lets increase damage of all set armors by 2x. Now 3x. Now 5x. Now 10x. Now 15x. Now 50x". They did add a few good gameplay features over the years, but its nothing compared to the amount of updates PoE has received. Not even in the same order of magnitude.

    Diablo fans haven been getting antsy about the game for a while now. We had three? seasons with no updates. Not even a small change to the meta. Diablo 3 was placed in "maintenance mode". It was added to their roster of "classic games". By the time blizzcon hit, fans were hoping for something. anything. Everyone seems to think "lol fans freaked cause they didn't get D4, what idiots" (not accusing anyone in this thread of that - it is just a general sentiment I have seen across the internet). But really diablo fans would have been happy with even a token thing for diablo 3, like a shakeup to the meta - a new patch. Heaven forbid, even a new expansion. A lot of people were thinking maybe a new class - druids? There were rumors of that. I don't think I need to explain why a mobile announcement was a slap in the face to that type of fan.


    Also, taking full consideration of what I said above, I'm going to defend PoE a bit here. It does feel clunky to play at first and I have had the exact same complaints but when you really get into it, it does improve. At higher levels of play it doesn't feel so clunky. It never hits Diablo 3 levels of smoothness though, but you end up getting a lot more fulfillment and satisfaction out of the game. With Diablo 3 I would always hit a point, fairly rapidly actually, where my character's progression basically tops out and continuing to play feels pointless. Its the most mindless grind ever. You burn out really fast.... you can complete an entire season in what, one weekend of gameplay? PoE has more staying power.

    The perfect game in my world would have been a meld of the two. If there was a game that was as optimized and nice to play as Diablo 3 but had the level of content support and depth as PoE, I would never play another game again. And I know that blizzard could have fucking done this if they wanted! Which goes back to why it is so infuriating that they just let Diablo 3 starve and die. It could have been so good. SO GOOD! BUT WE GOT A FUCKING MOBILE GAME

    !@#$!@#$!#$

    Al_wat on
    PSN: AWATTT66| XBox Live: AWATTT66| Steam: AL-WAT| Battle.Net: ALWATTS #1320
    Origin: aiwatt| Switch: SW-8499-0918-5960
    PreacherRoeApogeeNamrokLord_AsmodeusNoggin
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Diablo's opening 2 years or so were just awful, and the fact they recovered from it is a testament to their work.

    But it shouldn't have happened in the first place.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    Naphtali
  • dporowskidporowski Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Eh you can't put trolls on comments with the whole fandom. Its like vocal fans on comment threads are like a small % of a small %.

    Blizzard 100% owns the fan backlash, as they had previous to that announcement been doing bare min work with Diablo 3, while PoE got quality update after quality update. And then when they announce something its a mobile game made my an infamous company for micros.

    I'm still amazed that PoE was made by a 25 man team with a brand new title and is still top 10 on Steam and Twitch five years after release.

    Diablo III is a sequel to one of the best selling PC games of the time, with hundreds of developers and support staff. It has hardly seen any development since 2014 and has basically disappeared off the radar.

    D3 also came out in 2012, and last time I looked had absolutely no form of monetisation within it, meaning "it is a money sink". To my knowledge, since the removal of the AH, the only forms of income from that game have been one expansion and one new character, both of which met feedback of being "ripoffs" at their price point.

    Why in the hell would they spend MORE money on this? They've likely put multiple millions in in just maintenance, it's got no money coming out... For warm fuzzies or something?

    In contrast, PoE is free to play, which means "ongoing revenue" and thus "ongoing work".

  • RT800RT800 Registered User regular
    So is this remastered version of WC3 supposed to be just a prettier version of the same game or will there be new mechanics and campaigns as well?

  • TheStigTheStig Registered User regular
    Prettier version unless they have some secret plans they haven't stated yet. Blizz has been releasing balance patches to wc3 recently though.

    bnet: TheStig#1787 Steam: TheStig
  • RickRudeRickRude Registered User regular
    TheStig wrote: »
    Prettier version unless they have some secret plans they haven't stated yet. Blizz has been releasing balance patches to wc3 recently though.

    Are all the heroes now viable or do some of them still suck/most races have a must first?

  • NaphtaliNaphtali Null Registered User regular
    dporowski wrote: »
    D3 also came out in 2012, and last time I looked had absolutely no form of monetisation within it

    Forgot about the Real Money Auction House, did you?

    Ironically the game got more support when they finally removed its secondary funding stream.

    B.net: Naphtali#1830 | Steam | Nintendo ID: Naphtali | PSN: EI-Naphtali | Wish List
  • RT800RT800 Registered User regular
    Didn't D3 actually launch without the Real Money AH, and it was added in later?

  • Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman Registered User regular
    Also there was a second expansion in the works, but higher ups killed it when D3's launch buzz was bad. (Due to that aforementioned RMAH)

  • TamerBillTamerBill Registered User regular
    RT800 wrote: »
    Didn't D3 actually launch without the Real Money AH, and it was added in later?

    No, other way round. It was in at launch and removed later.

    3DS Friend Code: 4828-4410-2451
    AxenElvenshaeLord_Asmodeusautono-wally, erotibot300XerinkMunkus BeaverKwoaru
  • EspantaPajaroEspantaPajaro Registered User regular
    I have never found poe clunky . It has mountains and mountains of information to process especially when considering skill interaction and what equipment you need for a particular build to work. Righteous fire come to mind as it needs lots of hp and a way to negate constant fire degen , but I consider that depth not being clunky. The one thing I will cede is that it is BRUTAL for new players or players who think they will just walk unscathed through story mode like you do in Diablo 3 . Story mode monsters still hit HARD and demand some respect. It reminds me that I need to finish my atlas , took a break to play battletech but the itch has come back.

  • JasconiusJasconius sword criminal mad onlineRegistered User regular
    RT800 wrote: »
    So is this remastered version of WC3 supposed to be just a prettier version of the same game or will there be new mechanics and campaigns as well?

    The claim is that it's exactly the same game, and in fact even the same EXE file. When reforged comes out, it's basically just a paid graphics setting on the same game (that's how it has been described)

    However, they are using this opportunity to retcon a bunch of stuff in the campaign to align it with what WoW ended up doing with the characters.

    Players of classic AND reforged will all be on the same multiplayer service playing against each other.

    There are only rumors regarding new heroes & mechanical changes that would impact both versions.
    RickRude wrote: »
    TheStig wrote: »
    Prettier version unless they have some secret plans they haven't stated yet. Blizz has been releasing balance patches to wc3 recently though.

    Are all the heroes now viable or do some of them still suck/most races have a must first?

    It depends on the race and it depends on how seriously/hard you're playing. All races have preferred starting heroes, some have more flexibility than others. I would say NE and Orc have the most flexibility

    Try EVE Online with my referral code, and I'll like you a little bit: https://www.eveonline.com/signup/?invc=86622db9-a6f9-41e8-b846-c305f625b55b
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    So presumably what actual mechanics will be changed will be reflected in updates to "basic" Warcraft III anyway.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • JasconiusJasconius sword criminal mad onlineRegistered User regular
    Synthesis wrote: »
    So presumably what actual mechanics will be changed will be reflected in updates to "basic" Warcraft III anyway.

    there's a lot of murmuring about expanding the number of selectable units in a control group from 12 to 16, or something along those lines

    and there's murmuring about a new hero for each race

    Try EVE Online with my referral code, and I'll like you a little bit: https://www.eveonline.com/signup/?invc=86622db9-a6f9-41e8-b846-c305f625b55b
  • LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    Activision's biggest moneymaker is Candy Crush Saga. Remember. They own King now.

    Activision is not in danger. Yes, their stock took a hit after they flubbed the Diablo Immortal announcement and pissed off their fans. But they still have a mobile game in their house that generates like a billion dollars a year or something.

    The easy money they make from Candy Crush is also why their executives are eager to tap the mobile market even more. It sucks for us as hardcore PC fans, but it totally makes sense from a business perspective.

    The real issue here is a clash between two things: the passion of hobbyists vs making money.

    Game companies exist to make money. They are a business just like anything else. The thing that truly sucks isn't that they want to make money. Because that is understandable and relatable. The downside is when making money hurts the hobby itself, and business practices warp the thing we love.

    And that happens whenever anything goes mainstream.

    I'm not trying to sound like a hipster here, but video games were cooler 10-15 years ago when they weren't mainstream. I liked video games back when people were still considered "nerds" to play games. Now that everyone and their grandmother is a gamer, gaming sucks, because the entire hobby has warped. People saw business opportunity and they took it. It's a conflict of hobby vs money.

    Warlock82
  • Warlock82Warlock82 Never pet a burning dog Registered User regular
    edited January 15
    Jasconius wrote: »
    RT800 wrote: »
    So is this remastered version of WC3 supposed to be just a prettier version of the same game or will there be new mechanics and campaigns as well?

    The claim is that it's exactly the same game, and in fact even the same EXE file. When reforged comes out, it's basically just a paid graphics setting on the same game (that's how it has been described)

    However, they are using this opportunity to retcon a bunch of stuff in the campaign to align it with what WoW ended up doing with the characters.

    Players of classic AND reforged will all be on the same multiplayer service playing against each other.

    There are only rumors regarding new heroes & mechanical changes that would impact both versions.
    RickRude wrote: »
    TheStig wrote: »
    Prettier version unless they have some secret plans they haven't stated yet. Blizz has been releasing balance patches to wc3 recently though.

    Are all the heroes now viable or do some of them still suck/most races have a must first?

    It depends on the race and it depends on how seriously/hard you're playing. All races have preferred starting heroes, some have more flexibility than others. I would say NE and Orc have the most flexibility

    Not exactly. I believe it's the same base game (EXE), but they are definitely changing the campaign more than just retconning stuff. Part of that will also include map changes (they have specifically mentioned Culling of Stratholme will be redesigned to look more like WoW Stratholme and your army will start in the south part of the map instead of the north). So in that sense there's kind of a new campaign - at least, a remixed one. I also believe I heard they are adding alternate gender versions of all the heroes? (So like, female Paladins, female Farseers, etc). Though lore-wise I'm still a little curious how they will reconcile this as female Druids for example did not exist in this time period. Maybe they'll just handwave and say everything "outside the campaign" is non-canon (or at least not "set during WarCraft 3 times" specifically) so you can have female druids and whatever, but they won't add them to the main story.

    Warlock82 on
    Switch: 2143-7130-1359 | 3DS: 4983-4927-6699 | Steam: warlock82 | PSN: Warlock2282
  • BizazedoBizazedo Registered User regular
    Lucascraft wrote: »

    I'm not trying to sound like a hipster here, but video games were cooler 10-15 years ago when they weren't mainstream. I liked video games back when people were still considered "nerds" to play games. Now that everyone and their grandmother is a gamer, gaming sucks, because the entire hobby has warped. People saw business opportunity and they took it. It's a conflict of hobby vs money.
    I dunno. I recently got an Amiga emulator and installed a bunch of games and took a trip through nostalgia.

    It was great!

    ....but games are definitely better now than they were then. There's just also some predatory ones.

    XBL: Bizazedo
    PSN: Bizazedo
    CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    Seriously--as much as Gabe and Tycho might want to picture it as a burning house, Activision is at no risk as an actual company. This is what we used to call "the EA effect", though it's hardly limited to them--totally despised moves by a company, and whatever financial distress they might cause, are still weighed against the considerable assets they inherently hold, not to mention the profit model they've gone to great lengths to develop in the first place.

    I'd be more worried about Blizzard, as the smaller component, but I doubt they're at any risk either, no with that sweet lootbox money flowing in.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • Warlock82Warlock82 Never pet a burning dog Registered User regular
    Synthesis wrote: »
    Seriously--as much as Gabe and Tycho might want to picture it as a burning house, Activision is at no risk as an actual company. This is what we used to call "the EA effect", though it's hardly limited to them--totally despised moves by a company, and whatever financial distress they might cause, are still weighed against the considerable assets they inherently hold, not to mention the profit model they've gone to great lengths to develop in the first place.

    I'd be more worried about Blizzard, as the smaller component, but I doubt they're at any risk either, no with that sweet lootbox money flowing in.

    I think the fire is less to signify Activision itself being in trouble so much as them destroying the companies they own.

    My worry has never been a financial one but a moral one. I don't want, so to speak, the "culture" or "philosophy" of Blizzard to change. But I suspect it's already too late for that.

    Switch: 2143-7130-1359 | 3DS: 4983-4927-6699 | Steam: warlock82 | PSN: Warlock2282
    38thDoe3clipseSynthesisShadowhopeLord_AsmodeusXerinkElvenshaeshryke
  • EnigmedicEnigmedic Registered User regular
    The biggest problem is that people use the word game for microtransaction gacha waifu mobile shit. And those predatory practices bled into real games.

    3ds FC: 0645 - 7166 - 9801
    3clipseShadowhopeLord_AsmodeusElvenshaeMvrck
  • NamrokNamrok Registered User regular
    edited January 15
    Lucascraft wrote: »
    Activision's biggest moneymaker is Candy Crush Saga. Remember. They own King now.

    Activision is not in danger. Yes, their stock took a hit after they flubbed the Diablo Immortal announcement and pissed off their fans. But they still have a mobile game in their house that generates like a billion dollars a year or something.

    The easy money they make from Candy Crush is also why their executives are eager to tap the mobile market even more. It sucks for us as hardcore PC fans, but it totally makes sense from a business perspective.

    The real issue here is a clash between two things: the passion of hobbyists vs making money.

    Game companies exist to make money. They are a business just like anything else. The thing that truly sucks isn't that they want to make money. Because that is understandable and relatable. The downside is when making money hurts the hobby itself, and business practices warp the thing we love.

    And that happens whenever anything goes mainstream.

    I'm not trying to sound like a hipster here, but video games were cooler 10-15 years ago when they weren't mainstream. I liked video games back when people were still considered "nerds" to play games. Now that everyone and their grandmother is a gamer, gaming sucks, because the entire hobby has warped. People saw business opportunity and they took it. It's a conflict of hobby vs money.

    I couldn't agree harder. Gaming used to be far more counter cultural. Which is to say it risked offense far more gleefully, and it was people outside the hobby moralizing at them, like Jack Thompson. Now that it's mainstream, it's forces inside the hobby moralizing against it's counter cultural aspects, like PC Gamer or RockPaperShotgun. The few indie studios that dare still be counter cultural get ostracized from the SanFran moralizing indie clique. Like the guy behind Rimworld for the most subtle and milquetoast transgressions from SF moral norms.

    Namrok on
    Warlock82
  • 38thDoe38thDoe lets never be stupid again wait lets always be stupid foreverRegistered User regular
    Although Big studios may eventually fall into a lootbox hole with no bottom at least there are countless awesome games available from smaller studios. I think from that standpoint we are much better off than 15 years ago.



    steam_sig.png
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    Warlock82 wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    Seriously--as much as Gabe and Tycho might want to picture it as a burning house, Activision is at no risk as an actual company. This is what we used to call "the EA effect", though it's hardly limited to them--totally despised moves by a company, and whatever financial distress they might cause, are still weighed against the considerable assets they inherently hold, not to mention the profit model they've gone to great lengths to develop in the first place.

    I'd be more worried about Blizzard, as the smaller component, but I doubt they're at any risk either, no with that sweet lootbox money flowing in.

    I think the fire is less to signify Activision itself being in trouble so much as them destroying the companies they own.

    My worry has never been a financial one but a moral one. I don't want, so to speak, the "culture" or "philosophy" of Blizzard to change. But I suspect it's already too late for that.

    I hadn't thought of it as a metaphor like that, but it certainly could be.

    And yes, I have no doubt that Blizzard's own culture has changed (and that's something that would've caused me great dismay...years ago, less so now, as part of the "Where is Warcraft IV?" crowd). I mean, personally I was alarmed when they developed their penchant for cashing in on cosmetics ("Buy this hat horse! You know you want it!") but the real canary's death was their wholehearted embrace of the gambling/"Skinner Box" mechanics in their new blockbuster--not something everyone shares by any means, but it disturbed me and definitely struck me as something the Blizzard of yesteryear would've had no trouble calling out as gambling and preying on some of their customers if another company was doing it. But that Blizzard is probably long gone (with the Blizzard that used to make new RTS titles, I suspect), and not everyone misses it.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
    Warlock82
  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    Lucascraft wrote: »
    -snip-

    Game companies exist to make money. They are a business just like anything else. The thing that truly sucks isn't that they want to make money. Because that is understandable and relatable. The downside is when making money hurts the hobby itself, and business practices warp the thing we love.

    The biggest issue in my mind is a number of these AAA Devs go for the least amount of effort for the biggest, quickest return. Quality, fun or damage to the IP be damned. But they don't have to do that.

    There are a lot of other companies that just make a quality game and then sell a bunch of other stuff after the fact.

    Rockstar is probably a great example of this. They have, I think it fair to say, some of the worst micro-transactions around but it's kind of alright because their games are absolutely full to bursting with high quality content right out of the box. Also the fact that they freely admit the micro-transactions are there to make obscene amounts of money instead of trying to bullshit people about it like most others do is oddly refreshing.

    Bethesda too is another good example. I mean yeah, they are getting the shit kicked out of them currently and rightly so, but their main games are always stuffed full of content. They don't gut a game in order to sell the pieces back to you nor do they make playing the game annoying in order to sell boosters.

    In my personal opinion and I'm sure there are others that disagree, but I don't have an inherent problem with micro-transactions provided the game I paid $60 for is a complete experience and not hamstrung to sell me shit ala Shadow of War.

    Loot boxes on the other hand are a different matter.

  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    I'm still largely confused why Activision has seen a surge of hate again over the past few weeks.

    Centrism is just the cowardly way to be a bigot w/o being explicit about it.
    American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.
  • RT800RT800 Registered User regular
    What little I've gleaned from half-paying attention to various YouTube videos is that people are mad at Activision because they feel like they're a bunch of greedy suits that are ruining games by forcing devs to cram them full of lootboxes and microtransactions.

    Warlock82Elvenshae
  • 3clipse3clipse I will build a labyrinth to house the cheese Registered User regular
    Namrok wrote: »
    Lucascraft wrote: »
    Activision's biggest moneymaker is Candy Crush Saga. Remember. They own King now.

    Activision is not in danger. Yes, their stock took a hit after they flubbed the Diablo Immortal announcement and pissed off their fans. But they still have a mobile game in their house that generates like a billion dollars a year or something.

    The easy money they make from Candy Crush is also why their executives are eager to tap the mobile market even more. It sucks for us as hardcore PC fans, but it totally makes sense from a business perspective.

    The real issue here is a clash between two things: the passion of hobbyists vs making money.

    Game companies exist to make money. They are a business just like anything else. The thing that truly sucks isn't that they want to make money. Because that is understandable and relatable. The downside is when making money hurts the hobby itself, and business practices warp the thing we love.

    And that happens whenever anything goes mainstream.

    I'm not trying to sound like a hipster here, but video games were cooler 10-15 years ago when they weren't mainstream. I liked video games back when people were still considered "nerds" to play games. Now that everyone and their grandmother is a gamer, gaming sucks, because the entire hobby has warped. People saw business opportunity and they took it. It's a conflict of hobby vs money.

    I couldn't agree harder. Gaming used to be far more counter cultural. Which is to say it risked offense far more gleefully, and it was people outside the hobby moralizing at them, like Jack Thompson. Now that it's mainstream, it's forces inside the hobby moralizing against it's counter cultural aspects, like PC Gamer or RockPaperShotgun. The few indie studios that dare still be counter cultural get ostracized from the SanFran moralizing indie clique. Like the guy behind Rimworld for the most subtle and milquetoast transgressions from SF moral norms.

    So, first of all, it's impossible for counter-culture to remain counter-culture indefinitely. Eventually the youths who adopted that grow up and are the tastemakers for the generation and it just becomes culture. For example, see: all genres of music and film, ever, since the beginning of time. Attempts to remain counter-culture during this very natural progression are inevitably an utter cringefest.

    Also I don't know much about Rimworld but the lead dev (I think?) did say this delightfully inaccurate thing:
    "I've known some bi women," he writes, "and a large proportion of the nominally straight women I've known have discussed bi impulses or experiences they've had. In contrast, every bi man I've ever known has ultimately ended up identifying as gay. These patterns seem to apply even in very gay-friendly social contexts. Of course I'm sure bi/bi-curious men exist, but the research and what I've seen supports the conclusion that they're rarer than bi women. Conversely, gay women seem to be rarer than gay men."

    If that's what you're referring to, people aren't mad because of "moralizing," they're mad because that's a) completely incorrect and contradicted by decades of actual research and b) a profoundly shitty way to talk about basically everyone who isn't straight (which is a fucking lot of people). I'm not sure that's the guy I'd use as a shining example of the last bulwark against gaming's decline, because he's an idiot.

    Personally, I'd rather not go back to a time when gamers were just internet edgelords trying their god-damndest to recreate bad 80's comedy and morning radio shock jockey routines, but you do you!

    YaYa wrote: »
    FUCK YEAH LET'S FIGHT THE MOON
    OneAngryPossumFrozenzenShadowhopeBloodySlothFencingsax
  • NamrokNamrok Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    I'm still largely confused why Activision has seen a surge of hate again over the past few weeks.

    It's just a pile on. The dam finally broke around the BlizzCon announcement, and a general downturn in the market, especially tech stocks, cratered them along with it. It made for good clickbait headlines about how their stock tanked in response to the Diablo announcement, but it's a stretch to imply that causation.

    I will say, they were hit marginally harder than other tech stocks, and the NASDAQ which leans tech heavy. About the same as Nvidia, and a little worse than Apple. But I'd wait longer to see if it actually sticks.

    Fencingsax
  • 3clipse3clipse I will build a labyrinth to house the cheese Registered User regular
    I suspect Activision's stock woes are being caused by the issues as several other large publishers, which is that they saw explosive (and completely unsustainable) growth over the past couple years due to the widespread advent of loot boxes and other such monetization practices, and now they're struggling to find new avenues of growth to keep it going. Shareholders don't like that and are reacting accordingly.

    YaYa wrote: »
    FUCK YEAH LET'S FIGHT THE MOON
    ShadowhopeLord_AsmodeusElvenshaeshryke
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    I'm still largely confused why Activision has seen a surge of hate again over the past few weeks.

    Recent Blizzard moves (diablo immortal, BfA feeling like a step back from legion, effectively shutting down heroes of the storm) combined with adding super horseshit Microtransactions to the recent Cod including selling one red dot sight for like 2 dollars pissed people off. COD especially because reviewers/streamers had talked it up as a good COD and a return to form, and then a month later Activision turned on the micros and yikes.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    Elvenshae
  • 38thDoe38thDoe lets never be stupid again wait lets always be stupid foreverRegistered User regular
    Is there a link to this shutting down of heroes of the storm or a summary or something? I have a lot of friends playing it and I haven't heard anything about this story from them.



    steam_sig.png
  • NamrokNamrok Registered User regular
    3clipse wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    Lucascraft wrote: »
    Activision's biggest moneymaker is Candy Crush Saga. Remember. They own King now.

    Activision is not in danger. Yes, their stock took a hit after they flubbed the Diablo Immortal announcement and pissed off their fans. But they still have a mobile game in their house that generates like a billion dollars a year or something.

    The easy money they make from Candy Crush is also why their executives are eager to tap the mobile market even more. It sucks for us as hardcore PC fans, but it totally makes sense from a business perspective.

    The real issue here is a clash between two things: the passion of hobbyists vs making money.

    Game companies exist to make money. They are a business just like anything else. The thing that truly sucks isn't that they want to make money. Because that is understandable and relatable. The downside is when making money hurts the hobby itself, and business practices warp the thing we love.

    And that happens whenever anything goes mainstream.

    I'm not trying to sound like a hipster here, but video games were cooler 10-15 years ago when they weren't mainstream. I liked video games back when people were still considered "nerds" to play games. Now that everyone and their grandmother is a gamer, gaming sucks, because the entire hobby has warped. People saw business opportunity and they took it. It's a conflict of hobby vs money.

    I couldn't agree harder. Gaming used to be far more counter cultural. Which is to say it risked offense far more gleefully, and it was people outside the hobby moralizing at them, like Jack Thompson. Now that it's mainstream, it's forces inside the hobby moralizing against it's counter cultural aspects, like PC Gamer or RockPaperShotgun. The few indie studios that dare still be counter cultural get ostracized from the SanFran moralizing indie clique. Like the guy behind Rimworld for the most subtle and milquetoast transgressions from SF moral norms.

    So, first of all, it's impossible for counter-culture to remain counter-culture indefinitely. Eventually the youths who adopted that grow up and are the tastemakers for the generation and it just becomes culture. For example, see: all genres of music and film, ever, since the beginning of time. Attempts to remain counter-culture during this very natural progression are inevitably an utter cringefest.

    Also I don't know much about Rimworld but the lead dev (I think?) did say this delightfully inaccurate thing:
    "I've known some bi women," he writes, "and a large proportion of the nominally straight women I've known have discussed bi impulses or experiences they've had. In contrast, every bi man I've ever known has ultimately ended up identifying as gay. These patterns seem to apply even in very gay-friendly social contexts. Of course I'm sure bi/bi-curious men exist, but the research and what I've seen supports the conclusion that they're rarer than bi women. Conversely, gay women seem to be rarer than gay men."

    If that's what you're referring to, people aren't mad because of "moralizing," they're mad because that's a) completely incorrect and contradicted by decades of actual research and b) a profoundly shitty way to talk about basically everyone who isn't straight (which is a fucking lot of people). I'm not sure that's the guy I'd use as a shining example of the last bulwark against gaming's decline, because he's an idiot.

    Personally, I'd rather not go back to a time when gamers were just internet edgelords trying their god-damndest to recreate bad 80's comedy and morning radio shock jockey routines, but you do you!

    This is exactly what i mean by the most milquetoast of transgressions from the SanFran moral norms. What is he even saying? "I think there are more bi women than bi men, and more strictly gay men than strictly gay women"? That's it? That's his unforgivable moral transgression? That's just fucking census data. You say he's point of fact wrong. Ok. But it's a data point, not a moral statement.

    That's how insanely sensitive mainstream gaming has gotten. It's fucking nuts to me.

  • 3clipse3clipse I will build a labyrinth to house the cheese Registered User regular
    edited January 15
    Namrok wrote: »
    3clipse wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    Lucascraft wrote: »
    Activision's biggest moneymaker is Candy Crush Saga. Remember. They own King now.

    Activision is not in danger. Yes, their stock took a hit after they flubbed the Diablo Immortal announcement and pissed off their fans. But they still have a mobile game in their house that generates like a billion dollars a year or something.

    The easy money they make from Candy Crush is also why their executives are eager to tap the mobile market even more. It sucks for us as hardcore PC fans, but it totally makes sense from a business perspective.

    The real issue here is a clash between two things: the passion of hobbyists vs making money.

    Game companies exist to make money. They are a business just like anything else. The thing that truly sucks isn't that they want to make money. Because that is understandable and relatable. The downside is when making money hurts the hobby itself, and business practices warp the thing we love.

    And that happens whenever anything goes mainstream.

    I'm not trying to sound like a hipster here, but video games were cooler 10-15 years ago when they weren't mainstream. I liked video games back when people were still considered "nerds" to play games. Now that everyone and their grandmother is a gamer, gaming sucks, because the entire hobby has warped. People saw business opportunity and they took it. It's a conflict of hobby vs money.

    I couldn't agree harder. Gaming used to be far more counter cultural. Which is to say it risked offense far more gleefully, and it was people outside the hobby moralizing at them, like Jack Thompson. Now that it's mainstream, it's forces inside the hobby moralizing against it's counter cultural aspects, like PC Gamer or RockPaperShotgun. The few indie studios that dare still be counter cultural get ostracized from the SanFran moralizing indie clique. Like the guy behind Rimworld for the most subtle and milquetoast transgressions from SF moral norms.

    So, first of all, it's impossible for counter-culture to remain counter-culture indefinitely. Eventually the youths who adopted that grow up and are the tastemakers for the generation and it just becomes culture. For example, see: all genres of music and film, ever, since the beginning of time. Attempts to remain counter-culture during this very natural progression are inevitably an utter cringefest.

    Also I don't know much about Rimworld but the lead dev (I think?) did say this delightfully inaccurate thing:
    "I've known some bi women," he writes, "and a large proportion of the nominally straight women I've known have discussed bi impulses or experiences they've had. In contrast, every bi man I've ever known has ultimately ended up identifying as gay. These patterns seem to apply even in very gay-friendly social contexts. Of course I'm sure bi/bi-curious men exist, but the research and what I've seen supports the conclusion that they're rarer than bi women. Conversely, gay women seem to be rarer than gay men."

    If that's what you're referring to, people aren't mad because of "moralizing," they're mad because that's a) completely incorrect and contradicted by decades of actual research and b) a profoundly shitty way to talk about basically everyone who isn't straight (which is a fucking lot of people). I'm not sure that's the guy I'd use as a shining example of the last bulwark against gaming's decline, because he's an idiot.

    Personally, I'd rather not go back to a time when gamers were just internet edgelords trying their god-damndest to recreate bad 80's comedy and morning radio shock jockey routines, but you do you!

    This is exactly what i mean by the most milquetoast of transgressions from the SanFran moral norms. What is he even saying? "I think there are more bi women than bi men, and more strictly gay men than strictly gay women"? That's it? That's his unforgivable moral transgression? That's just fucking census data. You say he's point of fact wrong. Ok. But it's a data point, not a moral statement.

    That's how insanely sensitive mainstream gaming has gotten. It's fucking nuts to me.

    It's not census data, though. It's actually directly contradicted by census data. It's an incorrect justification he pulled out of his ass because he was on the spot and couldn't be arsed to figure out how this actually works in real life. That's why people got upset. Justifiably so! Deciding that a bunch of people must not exist because you personally haven't met anyone of that description is real fuckin' dumb.

    "I've never met anyone from Delaware. People claiming to be from Delaware are just lying or confused." <- a similarly dumb statement.

    edit: It's troubling to me that it's "insanely sensitive" to take issue with someone incorrectly claiming that bisexual men don't exist and lesbians are rarer than gay men. Disputing someone being wrong about the existence of entire groups is surely the most reasonable thing.

    3clipse on
    YaYa wrote: »
    FUCK YEAH LET'S FIGHT THE MOON
    kimeshryke
  • Warlock82Warlock82 Never pet a burning dog Registered User regular
    edited January 15
    3clipse wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    Lucascraft wrote: »
    Activision's biggest moneymaker is Candy Crush Saga. Remember. They own King now.

    Activision is not in danger. Yes, their stock took a hit after they flubbed the Diablo Immortal announcement and pissed off their fans. But they still have a mobile game in their house that generates like a billion dollars a year or something.

    The easy money they make from Candy Crush is also why their executives are eager to tap the mobile market even more. It sucks for us as hardcore PC fans, but it totally makes sense from a business perspective.

    The real issue here is a clash between two things: the passion of hobbyists vs making money.

    Game companies exist to make money. They are a business just like anything else. The thing that truly sucks isn't that they want to make money. Because that is understandable and relatable. The downside is when making money hurts the hobby itself, and business practices warp the thing we love.

    And that happens whenever anything goes mainstream.

    I'm not trying to sound like a hipster here, but video games were cooler 10-15 years ago when they weren't mainstream. I liked video games back when people were still considered "nerds" to play games. Now that everyone and their grandmother is a gamer, gaming sucks, because the entire hobby has warped. People saw business opportunity and they took it. It's a conflict of hobby vs money.

    I couldn't agree harder. Gaming used to be far more counter cultural. Which is to say it risked offense far more gleefully, and it was people outside the hobby moralizing at them, like Jack Thompson. Now that it's mainstream, it's forces inside the hobby moralizing against it's counter cultural aspects, like PC Gamer or RockPaperShotgun. The few indie studios that dare still be counter cultural get ostracized from the SanFran moralizing indie clique. Like the guy behind Rimworld for the most subtle and milquetoast transgressions from SF moral norms.

    So, first of all, it's impossible for counter-culture to remain counter-culture indefinitely. Eventually the youths who adopted that grow up and are the tastemakers for the generation and it just becomes culture. For example, see: all genres of music and film, ever, since the beginning of time. Attempts to remain counter-culture during this very natural progression are inevitably an utter cringefest.

    Also I don't know much about Rimworld but the lead dev (I think?) did say this delightfully inaccurate thing:
    "I've known some bi women," he writes, "and a large proportion of the nominally straight women I've known have discussed bi impulses or experiences they've had. In contrast, every bi man I've ever known has ultimately ended up identifying as gay. These patterns seem to apply even in very gay-friendly social contexts. Of course I'm sure bi/bi-curious men exist, but the research and what I've seen supports the conclusion that they're rarer than bi women. Conversely, gay women seem to be rarer than gay men."

    If that's what you're referring to, people aren't mad because of "moralizing," they're mad because that's a) completely incorrect and contradicted by decades of actual research and b) a profoundly shitty way to talk about basically everyone who isn't straight (which is a fucking lot of people). I'm not sure that's the guy I'd use as a shining example of the last bulwark against gaming's decline, because he's an idiot.

    Personally, I'd rather not go back to a time when gamers were just internet edgelords trying their god-damndest to recreate bad 80's comedy and morning radio shock jockey routines, but you do you!

    Not to pull this too off topic, but I do sort of agree I lament all the PC-ness in gaming these days. This is not to say they shouldn't be inclusive - I actually love seeing more stuff like that. I just hate every "You didn't make this character female/gay/whatever so you are scum of the earth" kind of thing that has been prevalent lately (recent example: people bitching that Overwatch doesn't have a black female hero in it yet. Dude, give them some fucking time...) I always say, let artists do their art the way they want to do it. If you disagree with how they're doing it, go somewhere else - there's never a shortage with the indie scene being so huge these days.

    Edit: I will say though I have no idea who this Rimworld guy is, I don't agree with what he's said there tho.

    Warlock82 on
    Switch: 2143-7130-1359 | 3DS: 4983-4927-6699 | Steam: warlock82 | PSN: Warlock2282
    EspantaPajaro
  • NamrokNamrok Registered User regular
    edited January 15
    3clipse wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    3clipse wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    Lucascraft wrote: »
    Activision's biggest moneymaker is Candy Crush Saga. Remember. They own King now.

    Activision is not in danger. Yes, their stock took a hit after they flubbed the Diablo Immortal announcement and pissed off their fans. But they still have a mobile game in their house that generates like a billion dollars a year or something.

    The easy money they make from Candy Crush is also why their executives are eager to tap the mobile market even more. It sucks for us as hardcore PC fans, but it totally makes sense from a business perspective.

    The real issue here is a clash between two things: the passion of hobbyists vs making money.

    Game companies exist to make money. They are a business just like anything else. The thing that truly sucks isn't that they want to make money. Because that is understandable and relatable. The downside is when making money hurts the hobby itself, and business practices warp the thing we love.

    And that happens whenever anything goes mainstream.

    I'm not trying to sound like a hipster here, but video games were cooler 10-15 years ago when they weren't mainstream. I liked video games back when people were still considered "nerds" to play games. Now that everyone and their grandmother is a gamer, gaming sucks, because the entire hobby has warped. People saw business opportunity and they took it. It's a conflict of hobby vs money.

    I couldn't agree harder. Gaming used to be far more counter cultural. Which is to say it risked offense far more gleefully, and it was people outside the hobby moralizing at them, like Jack Thompson. Now that it's mainstream, it's forces inside the hobby moralizing against it's counter cultural aspects, like PC Gamer or RockPaperShotgun. The few indie studios that dare still be counter cultural get ostracized from the SanFran moralizing indie clique. Like the guy behind Rimworld for the most subtle and milquetoast transgressions from SF moral norms.

    So, first of all, it's impossible for counter-culture to remain counter-culture indefinitely. Eventually the youths who adopted that grow up and are the tastemakers for the generation and it just becomes culture. For example, see: all genres of music and film, ever, since the beginning of time. Attempts to remain counter-culture during this very natural progression are inevitably an utter cringefest.

    Also I don't know much about Rimworld but the lead dev (I think?) did say this delightfully inaccurate thing:
    "I've known some bi women," he writes, "and a large proportion of the nominally straight women I've known have discussed bi impulses or experiences they've had. In contrast, every bi man I've ever known has ultimately ended up identifying as gay. These patterns seem to apply even in very gay-friendly social contexts. Of course I'm sure bi/bi-curious men exist, but the research and what I've seen supports the conclusion that they're rarer than bi women. Conversely, gay women seem to be rarer than gay men."

    If that's what you're referring to, people aren't mad because of "moralizing," they're mad because that's a) completely incorrect and contradicted by decades of actual research and b) a profoundly shitty way to talk about basically everyone who isn't straight (which is a fucking lot of people). I'm not sure that's the guy I'd use as a shining example of the last bulwark against gaming's decline, because he's an idiot.

    Personally, I'd rather not go back to a time when gamers were just internet edgelords trying their god-damndest to recreate bad 80's comedy and morning radio shock jockey routines, but you do you!

    This is exactly what i mean by the most milquetoast of transgressions from the SanFran moral norms. What is he even saying? "I think there are more bi women than bi men, and more strictly gay men than strictly gay women"? That's it? That's his unforgivable moral transgression? That's just fucking census data. You say he's point of fact wrong. Ok. But it's a data point, not a moral statement.

    That's how insanely sensitive mainstream gaming has gotten. It's fucking nuts to me.

    It's not census data, though. It's actually directly contradicted by census data. It's an incorrect justification he pulled out of his ass because he was on the spot and couldn't be arsed to figure out how this actually works in real life. That's why people got upset. Justifiably so! Deciding that a bunch of people must not exist because you personally haven't met anyone of that description is real fuckin' dumb.

    "I've never met anyone from Delaware. People claiming to be from Delaware are just lying or confused." <- a similarly dumb statement.

    Yeah, and cats in Dwarf Fortress don't work like cats in real life either. It's just a game.

    Also, even in the quote you provided, he's not claiming they don't exist. What are you even talking about? He explicitly says they do.

    Namrok on
    Apogee
  • LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    The Diablo Immortal fiasco was more of the straw that broke the camel's back, and not in and of itself a catalyst.

    People have been discontent with Activision for a while. Destiny 1 and Destiny 2 basically follow the same loop. Bungie literally made the same mistake twice. As outsiders, we don't know whose fault that is. But it's easy to point the finger at Activision as the bogeyman, because Activision is just a bunch of money grubbing suits. And it probably is their fault indirectly (even if it isn't directly their fault) by putting time pressure on Bungie to deliver a product by a specific date, even if the product wasn't ready. Likewise, you can be fairly certain that all the shaders and cosmetic stuff that was free in Destiny 1 and went into loot boxes in Destiny 2 was Activision's meddling. "why are we giving cosmetic shit away for free?"

    And anyway, Blizzard has been trending away from quality for a while now too. Diablo 3 at release was not well received, between the RMAH, lack of end game, horridly cliche story and pretty awful writing, and all that. HotS has never really found its footing in the gaming community at large. It has an identity problem that even Blizzard wasn't able to solve, which is why it went through multiple major overhauls and revisions. They don't know what they want it to be, and the fans picked up on that, and it hurt the product. Warcraft seems to be on a loop of Good Expansion/Bad Expansion right now, and BfA is the worst it has ever been from a quality control perspective. They let so many bugs out into the field at release. And then they had their 8.1 messiah patch that was supposed to right all the wrongs and fix the game, and it was super buggy and required many hotfixes and supplemental patches as well, oh and it didn't really fix any of the issues it was designed to fix.

    I don't like Hearthstone, but there's no denying that it came on the scene very explosively and overnight became the industry leader in digital card games, and it is the game to beat. Sadly, each Hearthstone expansion that has come out in the last few years feels a little too silly and a little too uninspired, and I think Blizzard has seen a pretty large drop in Hearthstone's popularity lately. (Side note, whoever their expansion designer is is completely obsessed with Goblins and I think that is hurting the game a lot. There have been far too many Goblin themed expansions for that game.)

    And back on topic to Activision, you also have the Respawn Entertainment fiasco with the Titanfall series, and how Titanfall is basically already a dead IP. You have the Call of Duty series, which at one point was their golden goose. But CoD is pretty stale now and when the topic of FPS comes up, CoD is not the brand on people's lips.

    All of that combined, whether all of it is really Activision's fault or not, is why they are taking a huge fan backlash right now.

    Warlock823clipseSynthesisEspantaPajaroAxenLord_AsmodeusElvenshaeApogeeFencingsax
Sign In or Register to comment.