1) That is true, I am just responding to the OP because he also assumed D3 was going to be released
2&3) See my second long post. I think I address the fact that whether or not they are different genres, coming from Blizzard and having a long history will make their markets conflict.
4) If they were to market the games separately, they would maximize profits because the longer the games are out but not bought, they lose money. If they released each game separately and waited for the hype to die out, optimal sales would happen.
I now laugh at you in your stupidity, now that Diablo 3 has been announced as anticipated.
Its not really an epic fail, money now is worth more than money later due to investing. Also, Blizzard could very well want to break some world records. And, not only monopolize the gaming industry for good.
I now laugh at you in your stupidity, now that Diablo 3 has been announced as anticipated.
How am I stupid? The topic of discussion was having the release dates of all three games near the same time period, not the fact that there will be three games to be released. It doesn't matter if there are three titles announced, what was proposed by the OP was the fact that the games would be released near the same time.
Quote from "Mud" »
Its not really an epic fail, money now is worth more than money later due to investing. Also, Blizzard could very well want to break some world records. And, not only monopolize the gaming industry for good.
True, Blizzard could very well profit from doing such a thing. But this method is very risky, as how is Blizzard supposed to predict how many copies they should order, as this move hasn't really been made before. Will people buy more than one copy? Or will people buy just one copy? And what percentage of the population will buy which copies? Too many variables to factor into a decision like this. If Blizzard orders too much or too less, they will not gain as much revenue as with a conservative choice. But suppose they are able to calculate the number. This method could prove very profitable. But what happens if it doesn't? Just a waste of money lying in stores waiting to be bought. Although the loss of money would not be significantly greater than the other method. If Blizzard is willing to lose money this way, it is going against it's company policy and cheating Vivendi's supporters and stockholders, as Blizzard is not trying to maximize profits as a company shoudl do. But again, with great risks come great profits. The question is, is Blizzard willing to gamble its capital on an method like this? I'm pretty conservative when it comes to my marketing ideas, and I'd say Blizzard shouldn't.
As for the monopoly part. It's highly improbable. Blizzard only releases titles every like 4-5 years I would guess. Blizzard might hold a high market share if and when all three games are released, but this market share will not hold out for the next 4-5 years when Blizzard releases its next titles. People will be looking for new games to play, but Blizzard won't have any to offer, so therefore, no monopoly.
So did anyone confirm if D3 was Hydra. If not I heard someone say people are speculationg that project hydra isnt actually a game, it's Blizzard preparing to release all three games around the same time. Three games thus hydra.
How am I stupid? The topic of discussion was having the release dates of all three games near the same time period, not the fact that there will be three games to be released. It doesn't matter if there are three titles announced, what was proposed by the OP was the fact that the games would be released near the same time.
True, Blizzard could very well profit from doing such a thing. But this method is very risky, as how is Blizzard supposed to predict how many copies they should order, as this move hasn't really been made before. Will people buy more than one copy? Or will people buy just one copy? And what percentage of the population will buy which copies? Too many variables to factor into a decision like this. If Blizzard orders too much or too less, they will not gain as much revenue as with a conservative choice. But suppose they are able to calculate the number. This method could prove very profitable. But what happens if it doesn't? Just a waste of money lying in stores waiting to be bought. Although the loss of money would not be significantly greater than the other method. If Blizzard is willing to lose money this way, it is going against it's company policy and cheating Vivendi's supporters and stockholders, as Blizzard is not trying to maximize profits as a company shoudl do. But again, with great risks come great profits. The question is, is Blizzard willing to gamble its capital on an method like this? I'm pretty conservative when it comes to my marketing ideas, and I'd say Blizzard shouldn't.
As for the monopoly part. It's highly improbable. Blizzard only releases titles every like 4-5 years I would guess. Blizzard might hold a high market share if and when all three games are released, but this market share will not hold out for the next 4-5 years when Blizzard releases its next titles. People will be looking for new games to play, but Blizzard won't have any to offer, so therefore, no monopoly.
What if they sold the games together as a package, It would have more sales and then some due to the fact that people are not going to buy both but now they are forced to. Huge Huge profits right there with a simple idea. Called it the Bnet package.
What if they sold the games together as a package, It would have more sales and then some due to the fact that people are not going to buy both but now they are forced to. Huge Huge profits right there with a simple idea. Called it the Bnet package.
Definitely not. Blizzard would never FORCE anyone to buy a game. If they packaged all of them together and made them impossible to buy separately I wouldn't buy it out of spite for Blizzard.
What if they sold the games together as a package, It would have more sales and then some due to the fact that people are not going to buy both but now they are forced to. Huge Huge profits right there with a simple idea. Called it the Bnet package.
First, people are not interested in getting all three games together. Personally, I have no interest in getting WotLK, so therefore, buying the 'Bnet package' is totally a waste of money. I am sure most of the gaming population feels the same way. The general population is not wililng to spend $130+ in one purchase for three games, of which they will only play one at a time.
Also, by introducing WotLK into the package, it means its basically discriminating non-WoW players because only WoW players will benefit from this package (if the combined price is lower than what it would cost for all three games to be sold separately). Non-WoW players will be forced to pay extra money for a game that they would not play. This 'Bnet package' caters to only a small market segment; WoW players who are interested in playing SC2 and D3 and are willing to drop $130+ upfront. And that is SMALL. If Blizzard forces consumers to pay for product features that they will not use, Blizzard's market share will only be to those who either are hardcore gamers or are wealthy.
Another reason is the fact that if they were to sell all three games together, it would only be logical to cut costs of the retail price. True, Blizzard would save a little bit of money by reduced packaging costs, less shipping per unit costs due to decreased volume, and etc. But, that strategy is not viable for a release. The demand will be high for the games, so why reduce profits per game when Blizzard releases the titles? Blizzard will be able to sell the games at $50-60 per game with the same effort as selling the games at $40 per game in a combined package. That is to say if consumers were willing to pay $130+ in one purchase. Which most likely they are not.
And lastly, would you pay for the 'Bnet package'? Are you a WoW player who is also interested in playing SC2 and D3, and willing to pay $130+ upfront?
EDIT: If it IS like the Orange Box, then I would not recommend it either. The Orange Box works because all the games that comes in it all cater to the same market segment: FPS gamers. However, this 'Bnet package' has components of multiple game genres. The amount of money that Blizzard will put into advertising, promotion, publicity, packaging, etc. will not be reimbursed by the sales that they will make from this package, as the percentage interested in this package would be, I would guess, around 1-2% of the gaming population. The majority of Blizzard's sales will come from selling and advertising to the general population. Blizzard, as a company, is looking for ROI, and focusing to a small market segment surely isn't.
Maybe you don't know how stocks work and influencing the market by releasing these games all at once; what it would do for the company as a whole. I don't care what you say, people will get D3 even if it costs you 90$ - 120$. 10 mil people spend $15 or so I think a month for WoW, whats that in a years time? Blizzard knows exactly what consumers have in terms of cash and time. Even just having SC2 and D3 together and WoWs exp seperate would still generate tons of revenue way beyond what they could normally achieve.
Look dude. The game is going to sell separate of everything else, and it's going to be 50-60$.
Any packaged marketing plan that involves Diablo with another game will NOT work, not if it's the only option anyways.
I personally am not all that excited about SC2. I played SC and it's not my type of game. If buying Diablo 3 meant HAVING to pay for SC2 as well, you'll find me on the black market.
Perhaps YOU don't know how stocks work. Dramatic, sudden rises = dramatic, sudden falls. A steady rise over time does MUCH more for a company, and it's stockholders.
Again, a release of all the games in a small time frame would be EXCITING, not PROFITABLE. Not as profitable anyways.
That would be a horrible marketing strategy. What is Blizzard hoping to get with releasing all three games close to one another. I personally am waiting for both SC2 and D3, so if they release D3 at the same time as SC2/WotLK, people would have a hard time choosing which game to buy, because most people don't have enough money to drop $100 to $150 on two or three of the games. Also, if they were to buy all three games, they can't play all of them at once. Therefore, most people will just buy one game, and wait until they beat that game and buy the second game that they want. This will result in lower sales and revenues at the beginning of the release, and by the time gamers are ready to buy the second game, they'll possibly find better deals than retail, yeilding in less revenue for Blizzard. It is NOT advisable to release all three games at the same time.
Plus, where the heck did you get those street dates from? Blizzard hasn't announced a beta yet, and they've been saying the games will be out when they are ready. BUT, if those dates are correct, which i DOUBT, but SC2 and WotLK cater to different marketing segments. One is an RTS while the other one will be picked up by loyal WoW fans. Releasing those two near each other, theoretically, should not have that much impact on sales. BUT, this is BLIZZARD. A major gaming company. With releases like SC2, a highly anticipated game, WITH WotLK, an expansion pack to one of the most played games, the sales of the games will eat each other up. And that's without D3. If D3 was in the mix, it would take away from WotLK's sales as they're both catering to MMORPG players. AND, D3 has been really anticipated. EVEN lower revenues for Blizzard.
Basically. That marketing strategy = FAIL.
lol I have no problem buying SC2 and Diablo 3 at the same time. It should be well within the budget of someone who has a job =\ And no, I'm not wasting my money on WotLK...lol WoW...how funny...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Id cry
As far as Project Hydra goes, as cool as your theory sounds, that's financially one of the worst things Blizzard could do.
How am I stupid? The topic of discussion was having the release dates of all three games near the same time period, not the fact that there will be three games to be released. It doesn't matter if there are three titles announced, what was proposed by the OP was the fact that the games would be released near the same time.
True, Blizzard could very well profit from doing such a thing. But this method is very risky, as how is Blizzard supposed to predict how many copies they should order, as this move hasn't really been made before. Will people buy more than one copy? Or will people buy just one copy? And what percentage of the population will buy which copies? Too many variables to factor into a decision like this. If Blizzard orders too much or too less, they will not gain as much revenue as with a conservative choice. But suppose they are able to calculate the number. This method could prove very profitable. But what happens if it doesn't? Just a waste of money lying in stores waiting to be bought. Although the loss of money would not be significantly greater than the other method. If Blizzard is willing to lose money this way, it is going against it's company policy and cheating Vivendi's supporters and stockholders, as Blizzard is not trying to maximize profits as a company shoudl do. But again, with great risks come great profits. The question is, is Blizzard willing to gamble its capital on an method like this? I'm pretty conservative when it comes to my marketing ideas, and I'd say Blizzard shouldn't.
As for the monopoly part. It's highly improbable. Blizzard only releases titles every like 4-5 years I would guess. Blizzard might hold a high market share if and when all three games are released, but this market share will not hold out for the next 4-5 years when Blizzard releases its next titles. People will be looking for new games to play, but Blizzard won't have any to offer, so therefore, no monopoly.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
http://www.blizzard.com/diablo3/_images/artwork/ss38-hires.jpg
Def. not a marketing strategy, while being exciting it = less sales for Blizzard.
What if they sold the games together as a package, It would have more sales and then some due to the fact that people are not going to buy both but now they are forced to. Huge Huge profits right there with a simple idea. Called it the Bnet package.
Definitely not. Blizzard would never FORCE anyone to buy a game. If they packaged all of them together and made them impossible to buy separately I wouldn't buy it out of spite for Blizzard.
Sales would plummet, end of story.
First, people are not interested in getting all three games together. Personally, I have no interest in getting WotLK, so therefore, buying the 'Bnet package' is totally a waste of money. I am sure most of the gaming population feels the same way. The general population is not wililng to spend $130+ in one purchase for three games, of which they will only play one at a time.
Also, by introducing WotLK into the package, it means its basically discriminating non-WoW players because only WoW players will benefit from this package (if the combined price is lower than what it would cost for all three games to be sold separately). Non-WoW players will be forced to pay extra money for a game that they would not play. This 'Bnet package' caters to only a small market segment; WoW players who are interested in playing SC2 and D3 and are willing to drop $130+ upfront. And that is SMALL. If Blizzard forces consumers to pay for product features that they will not use, Blizzard's market share will only be to those who either are hardcore gamers or are wealthy.
Another reason is the fact that if they were to sell all three games together, it would only be logical to cut costs of the retail price. True, Blizzard would save a little bit of money by reduced packaging costs, less shipping per unit costs due to decreased volume, and etc. But, that strategy is not viable for a release. The demand will be high for the games, so why reduce profits per game when Blizzard releases the titles? Blizzard will be able to sell the games at $50-60 per game with the same effort as selling the games at $40 per game in a combined package. That is to say if consumers were willing to pay $130+ in one purchase. Which most likely they are not.
And lastly, would you pay for the 'Bnet package'? Are you a WoW player who is also interested in playing SC2 and D3, and willing to pay $130+ upfront?
EDIT: If it IS like the Orange Box, then I would not recommend it either. The Orange Box works because all the games that comes in it all cater to the same market segment: FPS gamers. However, this 'Bnet package' has components of multiple game genres. The amount of money that Blizzard will put into advertising, promotion, publicity, packaging, etc. will not be reimbursed by the sales that they will make from this package, as the percentage interested in this package would be, I would guess, around 1-2% of the gaming population. The majority of Blizzard's sales will come from selling and advertising to the general population. Blizzard, as a company, is looking for ROI, and focusing to a small market segment surely isn't.
Any packaged marketing plan that involves Diablo with another game will NOT work, not if it's the only option anyways.
I personally am not all that excited about SC2. I played SC and it's not my type of game. If buying Diablo 3 meant HAVING to pay for SC2 as well, you'll find me on the black market.
Perhaps YOU don't know how stocks work. Dramatic, sudden rises = dramatic, sudden falls. A steady rise over time does MUCH more for a company, and it's stockholders.
Again, a release of all the games in a small time frame would be EXCITING, not PROFITABLE. Not as profitable anyways.
lol I have no problem buying SC2 and Diablo 3 at the same time. It should be well within the budget of someone who has a job =\ And no, I'm not wasting my money on WotLK...lol WoW...how funny...