My hope is that they're going to announce it is in the works. I mean, obviously it would be at some level. But Blizzard games tend to have a longer shelf-life than most games. The one game that gets the fastest content turn-around is World of Warcraft, but outside that they've gone many years between releases in their series and players don't mind. A lot of that has to do with Blizzard being, especially years ago, one of the few companies to provide continued support years after a game comes out.
But if Overwatch 2 is actually in demo form, that's not good. I know I've been down on people who for years had been saying "Activision is going to ruin Blizzard" but it wasn't until this year that I started agreeing with that sentiment. And this is one of those instances where it seems true. Overwatch came out three years and a month ago. If they're ready to release another game within the next year it is a pretty big shift in development schedule. Yikes.
Four years seems reasonable for a new release. (If it actually comes out on time, which, you know, blizzard) It took some dev hell situations to provide for the decade long gaps between SC1/2 and Diablo 2/3.
It does in the general sense of video games yes. But I was making the point from how Blizzard tends to operate, which is very generously letting people adopt a game 'late' but still have a big community to play with, let alone no buyers' remorse because oops the sequel is out soon. It's the contrast that's the point.
My hope is that they're going to announce it is in the works. I mean, obviously it would be at some level. But Blizzard games tend to have a longer shelf-life than most games. The one game that gets the fastest content turn-around is World of Warcraft, but outside that they've gone many years between releases in their series and players don't mind. A lot of that has to do with Blizzard being, especially years ago, one of the few companies to provide continued support years after a game comes out.
But if Overwatch 2 is actually in demo form, that's not good. I know I've been down on people who for years had been saying "Activision is going to ruin Blizzard" but it wasn't until this year that I started agreeing with that sentiment. And this is one of those instances where it seems true. Overwatch came out three years and a month ago. If they're ready to release another game within the next year it is a pretty big shift in development schedule. Yikes.
Four years seems reasonable for a new release. (If it actually comes out on time, which, you know, blizzard) It took some dev hell situations to provide for the decade long gaps between SC1/2 and Diablo 2/3.
There's also the looming specter of lootboxes getting nixed in China and EU so
Again, I don't think those were intentional moves by Blizzard.
Had they not scrapped Diablo 3 partway through development and had something they were happy to release in the mid 2000's, I'm positive they would have.
Likewise, had SC2 not been delayed a bunch, it probably would have been poised to replace WC3 in much shorter time.
0
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
My hope is that they're going to announce it is in the works. I mean, obviously it would be at some level. But Blizzard games tend to have a longer shelf-life than most games. The one game that gets the fastest content turn-around is World of Warcraft, but outside that they've gone many years between releases in their series and players don't mind. A lot of that has to do with Blizzard being, especially years ago, one of the few companies to provide continued support years after a game comes out.
But if Overwatch 2 is actually in demo form, that's not good. I know I've been down on people who for years had been saying "Activision is going to ruin Blizzard" but it wasn't until this year that I started agreeing with that sentiment. And this is one of those instances where it seems true. Overwatch came out three years and a month ago. If they're ready to release another game within the next year it is a pretty big shift in development schedule. Yikes.
Four years seems reasonable for a new release. (If it actually comes out on time, which, you know, blizzard) It took some dev hell situations to provide for the decade long gaps between SC1/2 and Diablo 2/3.
There's also the looming specter of lootboxes getting nixed in China and EU so
oh my god really? that would rule
There's a lot of debate about it and it's not going in game companies favor.
+5
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
edited June 2019
There is even a proposed bill in the US now with bipartisan support. Which is like, man, you really have to fuck up to get bipartisan support in the US.
I read the bill and it looks like whoever wrote it actually knew what the hell they were talking about. Which is. . . weird.
One drawback some people have with it is that it only makes lootboxes, P2W, and progression boosters illegal to have in games that are marketed to children.
What people forget is that "children" in the US is officially anyone under 18. Which is a pretty big ass fucking demographic for games. So the measure would effectively kill lootboxes and other scummy practices for any game not rated AO. Which would effectively kill these practices in its entirety.
Axen on
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
There is even a proposed bill in the US now with bipartisan support. Which is like, man, you really have to fuck up to get bipartisan support in the US.
Well dems hate lootboxes because they're predatory, and the Fox News crowd still think video games are the devil. So really, this bill looks good for both sides.
+4
3cl1ps3I will build a labyrinth to house the cheeseRegistered Userregular
Anything where you can honestly claim "it's to protect children" is very likely to succeed because it's very mediagenic and politicians of all alignments need to stay popular to keep their job.
+2
GoodKingJayIIIThey wanna get mygold on the ceilingRegistered Userregular
Baldur's motherfucking Gate 3, guys.
Battletag: Threeve#1501
PSN: Threeve703
+5
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
Ghost was supposed to be Blizzard’s first console release, and was also being done by a third-party. So yeah, troubled development.
Thinking of an Overwatch 2 is just...weird? Blizzard games tend to have legs, I guess. But that is running opposite of how Activision wants to work.
Activision: BUY OUR GAME! BUY THE BONUS CONTENT FOR THE GAME!
Also Activision: BUY THE NEXT GAME! ITS LIKE THE LAST ONE BUT ITS THE NEXT! DON'T FORGET TO BUY THE BONUS CONTENT FOR THE GAME!
They’d have to do something radically different and unique to get me to buy into a Overwatch 2, since the original *should* have been my jam but I bounced off it hard.
COME FORTH, AMATERASU! - Switch Friend Code SW-5465-2458-5696 - Twitch
Ghost was supposed to be Blizzard’s first console release, and was also being done by a third-party. So yeah, troubled development.
Thinking of an Overwatch 2 is just...weird? Blizzard games tend to have legs, I guess. But that is running opposite of how Activision wants to work.
Blizzard had plenty of console releases before Ghost.
Other than Diablo I don't think they've had a console release in over a decade... possibly not since the SNES/Genesis era with like The Lost Vikings, so more than a decade? o_o
edit: Overwatch too.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
Ghost was supposed to be Blizzard’s first console release, and was also being done by a third-party. So yeah, troubled development.
Thinking of an Overwatch 2 is just...weird? Blizzard games tend to have legs, I guess. But that is running opposite of how Activision wants to work.
Blizzard had plenty of console releases before Ghost.
Other than Diablo I don't think they've had a console release in over a decade... possibly not since the SNES/Genesis era with like The Lost Vikings, so more than a decade? o_o
I think he means Ghost was not the first console game, which was a PS1 era title.
Anything where you can honestly claim "it's to protect children" is very likely to succeed because it's very mediagenic and politicians of all alignments need to stay popular to keep their job.
Unless it's to protect children from gun violence, preventable diseases, or poor educations. Those are now partisan issues.
Anything where you can honestly claim "it's to protect children" is very likely to succeed because it's very mediagenic and politicians of all alignments need to stay popular to keep their job.
Unless it's to protect children from gun violence, preventable diseases, or poor educations. Those are now partisan issues.
To say nothing of the garbage happening at the border.
Ghost was supposed to be Blizzard’s first console release, and was also being done by a third-party. So yeah, troubled development.
Thinking of an Overwatch 2 is just...weird? Blizzard games tend to have legs, I guess. But that is running opposite of how Activision wants to work.
Blizzard had plenty of console releases before Ghost.
Other than Diablo I don't think they've had a console release in over a decade... possibly not since the SNES/Genesis era with like The Lost Vikings, so more than a decade? o_o
I think he means Ghost was not the first console game, which was a PS1 era title.
Ghost was supposed to be Blizzard’s first console release, and was also being done by a third-party. So yeah, troubled development.
Thinking of an Overwatch 2 is just...weird? Blizzard games tend to have legs, I guess. But that is running opposite of how Activision wants to work.
Blizzard had plenty of console releases before Ghost.
It was their first game designed for console. As in, not a PC port. Ghost was not initially coming to PC.
And Lost Vikings et al were under the Silicon & Synapse brand.
Death and Return of Superman, Blackthorne, Justice League Task Force and Lost Vikings 2 were all released under the Blizzard brand.
Death and Return of Superman was co-developed by Sunsoft, published by Sunsoft.
Blackthorne was developed and published by other companies in addition to Blizzard.
Justice League Task Force was only developed by Blizzard for the SNES version; the other versions were developed by others. All published by Acclaim.
Lost Vikings 2 is another case of Blizzard handling the SNES version but not the others.
Like you're technically right, but you're also wrong as far as lone effort / ability for a developer and self-publisher goes. Ghost was a big deal and is still unique with respect to being a console-focus developed game.
0
Zavianuniversal peace sounds better than forever warRegistered Userregular
Ghost was supposed to be Blizzard’s first console release, and was also being done by a third-party. So yeah, troubled development.
Thinking of an Overwatch 2 is just...weird? Blizzard games tend to have legs, I guess. But that is running opposite of how Activision wants to work.
Blizzard had plenty of console releases before Ghost.
It was their first game designed for console. As in, not a PC port. Ghost was not initially coming to PC.
And Lost Vikings et al were under the Silicon & Synapse brand.
Death and Return of Superman, Blackthorne, Justice League Task Force and Lost Vikings 2 were all released under the Blizzard brand.
Death and Return of Superman was co-developed by Sunsoft, published by Sunsoft.
Blackthorne was developed and published by other companies in addition to Blizzard.
Justice League Task Force was only developed by Blizzard for the SNES version; the other versions were developed by others. All published by Acclaim.
Lost Vikings 2 is another case of Blizzard handling the SNES version but not the others.
Like you're technically right, but you're also wrong as far as lone effort / ability for a developer and self-publisher goes. Ghost was a big deal and is still unique with respect to being a console-focus developed game.
Ghost was being developed by Nihilistic Software and then later Swingin' Ape Studios. (RIP Metal Arms) It wouldn't count under that criteria either.
I don't remember if Nihilistic was, but Swingin' Ape Studios was acquired by Blizzard in the same manner the developers of Diablo 1 and 2 were so I think it counts.
Okay, I lost the train of thought on this conversation: what are were talking about now?
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Nothing because we're all incorrect and need to rethink things.
I just found out my nephew and niece won't be home for all the conference days, so I can yell about shit on voice chat with people and be a maniac about E3.
There is even a proposed bill in the US now with bipartisan support. Which is like, man, you really have to fuck up to get bipartisan support in the US.
I read the bill and it looks like whoever wrote it actually knew what the hell they were talking about. Which is. . . weird.
One drawback some people have with it is that it only makes lootboxes, P2W, and progression boosters illegal to have in games that are marketed to children.
What people forget is that "children" in the US is officially anyone under 18. Which is a pretty big ass fucking demographic for games. So the measure would effectively kill lootboxes and other scummy practices for any game not rated AO. Which would effectively kill these practices in its entirety.
"Children" should refer to anyone younger than 121 years old.
My hope is that they're going to announce it is in the works. I mean, obviously it would be at some level. But Blizzard games tend to have a longer shelf-life than most games. The one game that gets the fastest content turn-around is World of Warcraft, but outside that they've gone many years between releases in their series and players don't mind. A lot of that has to do with Blizzard being, especially years ago, one of the few companies to provide continued support years after a game comes out.
But if Overwatch 2 is actually in demo form, that's not good. I know I've been down on people who for years had been saying "Activision is going to ruin Blizzard" but it wasn't until this year that I started agreeing with that sentiment. And this is one of those instances where it seems true. Overwatch came out three years and a month ago. If they're ready to release another game within the next year it is a pretty big shift in development schedule. Yikes.
Four years seems reasonable for a new release. (If it actually comes out on time, which, you know, blizzard) It took some dev hell situations to provide for the decade long gaps between SC1/2 and Diablo 2/3.
It does in the general sense of video games yes. But I was making the point from how Blizzard tends to operate, which is very generously letting people adopt a game 'late' but still have a big community to play with, let alone no buyers' remorse because oops the sequel is out soon. It's the contrast that's the point.
I think you're mis-remembering the way Blizzard's releases have traditionally gone in the past. Yes their sequels were infrequent, but not because they just continued to pour time into the old games. They would release a game, then an expansion a year or two later, and then they would move on from that game with maybe another year of bonus development after that. SC2 and D3 both followed that model.
The only games they've ever made that have been positioned as "forever games" were WoW, Hearthstone and HotS. Beyond that, their release schedules are pretty traditional, and their games have a long tail because of the community, not really sustained development. Overwatch has nothing to complain about in that regard - they put out 9 maps, 9 heroes, a variety of additional features/modes/events, all completely for free. For them to put out a sequel 4 years later is not anything close to being a cynical cash grab, it's just business.
Posts
oh my god really? that would rule
Had they not scrapped Diablo 3 partway through development and had something they were happy to release in the mid 2000's, I'm positive they would have.
Likewise, had SC2 not been delayed a bunch, it probably would have been poised to replace WC3 in much shorter time.
There's a lot of debate about it and it's not going in game companies favor.
I read the bill and it looks like whoever wrote it actually knew what the hell they were talking about. Which is. . . weird.
One drawback some people have with it is that it only makes lootboxes, P2W, and progression boosters illegal to have in games that are marketed to children.
What people forget is that "children" in the US is officially anyone under 18. Which is a pretty big ass fucking demographic for games. So the measure would effectively kill lootboxes and other scummy practices for any game not rated AO. Which would effectively kill these practices in its entirety.
Well dems hate lootboxes because they're predatory, and the Fox News crowd still think video games are the devil. So really, this bill looks good for both sides.
PSN: Threeve703
I only played it briefly but Ghost was a mediocre-at-best game. Maybe this was too?
Re: Overwatch 2, I'll fully support that shit if it means I don't have to wait 12 months a year to play insubstantial story-based content
Thinking of an Overwatch 2 is just...weird? Blizzard games tend to have legs, I guess. But that is running opposite of how Activision wants to work.
Also Activision: BUY THE NEXT GAME! ITS LIKE THE LAST ONE BUT ITS THE NEXT! DON'T FORGET TO BUY THE BONUS CONTENT FOR THE GAME!
Blizzard had plenty of console releases before Ghost.
COME FORTH, AMATERASU! - Switch Friend Code SW-5465-2458-5696 - Twitch
Other than Diablo I don't think they've had a console release in over a decade... possibly not since the SNES/Genesis era with like The Lost Vikings, so more than a decade? o_o
edit: Overwatch too.
I think he means Ghost was not the first console game, which was a PS1 era title.
Unless it's to protect children from gun violence, preventable diseases, or poor educations. Those are now partisan issues.
To say nothing of the garbage happening at the border.
StarCraft was, if I recall, available on N64
And Lost Vikings et al were under the Silicon & Synapse brand.
Death and Return of Superman, Blackthorne, Justice League Task Force and Lost Vikings 2 were all released under the Blizzard brand.
I had played the PC version a bunch, then went to a buddies place to play...I swear the res was 320x260 or something.
When you played split screen coop you got half of that. I swear the command centre took up the whole screen...
My first taste of pc master race hahahaha
Complaining about generic white dudes is almost as widespread as generic white dudes. You know the game has a character creator right?
Steam | XBL
Gamecube exclusive, IIRC.
At least there's still the 40K IP out there
Blackthorne was developed and published by other companies in addition to Blizzard.
Justice League Task Force was only developed by Blizzard for the SNES version; the other versions were developed by others. All published by Acclaim.
Lost Vikings 2 is another case of Blizzard handling the SNES version but not the others.
Like you're technically right, but you're also wrong as far as lone effort / ability for a developer and self-publisher goes. Ghost was a big deal and is still unique with respect to being a console-focus developed game.
I would settle for Total War: Warhammer 40K
Ghost was being developed by Nihilistic Software and then later Swingin' Ape Studios. (RIP Metal Arms) It wouldn't count under that criteria either.
Gearbox is one of those studies I mostly like, but I'm reserved about giving more money to Randy Pitchford because of his being a colossal jackass.
I just found out my nephew and niece won't be home for all the conference days, so I can yell about shit on voice chat with people and be a maniac about E3.
Red Ringed Octopee
"Children" should refer to anyone younger than 121 years old.
I think you're mis-remembering the way Blizzard's releases have traditionally gone in the past. Yes their sequels were infrequent, but not because they just continued to pour time into the old games. They would release a game, then an expansion a year or two later, and then they would move on from that game with maybe another year of bonus development after that. SC2 and D3 both followed that model.
The only games they've ever made that have been positioned as "forever games" were WoW, Hearthstone and HotS. Beyond that, their release schedules are pretty traditional, and their games have a long tail because of the community, not really sustained development. Overwatch has nothing to complain about in that regard - they put out 9 maps, 9 heroes, a variety of additional features/modes/events, all completely for free. For them to put out a sequel 4 years later is not anything close to being a cynical cash grab, it's just business.