NO. I WAS FIRST. Actually I freaked cause I thought my account was compromised for a second. I just recently got identity thefted, so I'm a bit paranoid.Quote from Winged
Dolaiim no worries, good discussion is good discussion right?
Quote from Winged
An yes I'd agree earliest is July, though again.. Logic says Blizzard never reaches goals at the earliest possible date.. Again, when July 20th rolls around and the BETA isn't here yet I'll say I told ya so again
Definitely. That's why I made sure to say the earliest a beta could start is July 1. The latest a beta could start is Sept. 30th.
I'm not actually disappointed. I am, however, surprised and amazed that a 3-month margin of error was the best they could do for a BETA START DATE. I listened to the full conf call (I'm used to them since I work for a publicly traded company, and am a private investor), and it never ceases to amaze me that Blizzard can look Goldman and DB hedge fund managers in the face, who hold thousands of their shares, and basically admonish them for being curious about what YEAR this game will be released.
Once you go public, you have one boss: Your shareholders. There's a reason Act/Bliz stock has done nothing for a long time.
Calendar year 2011, not fiscal year.
Simple equation:
(July 1, 2011) <= (BETA START TIME) <= (Sept 30, 2011)
0
We are basically in agreement. Blizzard has obvious demand from WoW users they need to manage. Damn right they should meet those demands.
Thing is, they can use that demand to pull current customers into their new IP. But why does that matter? What's the difference? To this question, the business end of Bliz seems to be blind. I mean, they get customer $$ either way
Well, that's where my commentary comes in. They can use that demand to maintain the current IP, which retards innovation in gaming, or they can use that demand to push WoW users into their new IP. If they wait too long, other companies will come along and steal customers to their brand. This is already happening, and Blizzard's solution is to fix the problem with price, not innovation. That's what got me up in arms.
All things being equal, it's better for customers, gaming, and the world to innovate.
0
I'm not saying they don't care about their games at all. Of course they still obsess over quality.
But just because their development phase takes a long time doesn't immutably prove they are taking a long time for quality's sake.. There is X amount of engineering work that needs to be done. If you want to get X done faster, you get more engineers working on it. Development speed (feature velocity) is directly proportional to engineering resources. If Blizzard would have committed more engineers earlier, Diablo 3 would have been released already. But they are still allocating so many resources to WoW that it is slowing down their innovation engine.
I'm not saying that's inherently bad, per se. I feel like gaming as a whole needs brilliant developers such as Blizzard to take gaming into the next generation, and they will take a lot longer if they're commiting a majority of their R&D to previous generation titles and IP.
I'm also not knocking WoW in itself. I played for years and loved it, it's (IMHO) the best computer game ever made. 10million users can't lie. What I'm knocking is the idea that WoW will live on forever. Let's take what WoW did, make it even better so it will meet the needs of a changing customer base, and move your customer base to your new IP. And let's try to do it in a timely fashion.. 10 years per game just doesn't play.
You're right though, Titan is it. If they knock it outta the park, all is well. But people who try to argue that time-to-market has no value, I would strongly urge you to re-consider. In software engineering, time-to-market has a massive impact on brand loyalty.
0
I agree. The move is a great decision for the business, but has dreary implications for the future of gaming, especially on PC.
I'm a software engineer for a company (Cisco) that depends 100% on staying ahead of the world in terms of innovation. While we would never purposefully "kill" any outdated flagship platform that customers still love, we are constantly working to innovate new IP and develop new features, platforms, architectures and solutions. Why? Because that's what's best for our customers, that's what's best for the internet, that's what's best for the world. Customers will naturally move to your new product as long as it has high quality, and exceeds the needs met by their current product.
Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, we know that if you take too long to innovate, people will start beating you at your own game.
What irks me about trying to keep people inside of and obsessed with an old game, built on old engines, is that it encourages the allocation of engineering resources towards maintaining old solutions as opposed to innovating and inventing new ones.
By obsessing over money instead of gaming, gaming as an enterprise suffers.
Am I using a rather benign topic (WoW annual pass) as a springboard for this discussion? Yes. I applaud Bliz for their business savvy. I just want to applaud them for their innovation, and inspiring a new generation of meaningful gaming.
There, I'm done.
0
What is your deal with flaming anyone who doesn't happen to share your opinion?
I don't agree with him, but dude, he's allowed to not be stoked about beta footage....
If everyone had identical opinions these forums wouldn't exist. Stop pretending like your half-assed opinions are any better than anyone else's.
0
Alright, fine, I'll admit it. I was arguing just to argue. But check out Phrayed's response on the bottom of page 2.. THAT is how you change someone's mind.
But I'll say it again, even though it's a related but different argument: Blizzard needs to kick WoW if they want to innovate.
0
THAT, sir, is an exceptional rebuttal. I cannot disagree with any of your points, and there are no fallacies that I can see.
I have officially changed my mind.
Edit: for the record, i still believe that Blizzard needs move beyond WoW in order to truly innovate the gaming world, but that is a separate argument.
oh, and for the record, there's a bit of "appeal to popularity" and "appeal to sanity" but since you don't base your argument on them, i'll allow it.
AND as a 1-time special offer, I will reveal the primary fallacy of MY argument: The Relativist Fallacy
The Relativist Fallacy is committed when a person rejects a claim by asserting that the claim might be true for others but is not for him/her. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
Claim X is presented.
Person A asserts that X may be true for others but is not true for him/her.
Therefore A is justified in rejecting X.
0
I'm in a week-long Python training course, and I know this stuff already. Did it to get outta the cubicle for a spell. Soooooooo, Ima keep sitting here shooting diamonds of truth and knowledge at all those sorry suckers who would deny my testicular fortitude.
BAM.
0
Jesus fucking christ, kid. You didn't read the "Read the following carefully:" did you? That part where I said it's my opinion?
And consider for a second, that your rebuttal is YOUR opinion, and as such, gives you absolutely no moral advantage.
Anyway, I'm done bouncing ideas off your thick skull, you're just not gonna get it.
0
well said.
i am moved by the art and creative energy put into games by truly brilliant engineers and artists. what i see is the art being sacrificed by immutable, cynical business interests. if that doesn't bother you, that's alright, you are a in a growing majority. but it bothers me by damn far, and i don't take bother sitting down.
if my passion bothers anyone here, that's too damn bad.
0
My contention is that it's NOT totally irrelevant. My objection comes down to this: I want Blizzard to let WoW die, because
1. It will strengthen in numbers and longevity the Diablo 3 player base
2. In the long run they will be able to focus more resources on their future releases, and not an IP which is dead to me and a growing number of gamers.
So yeah, PLEASE EXCUSE ME for objecting to something on principle. My opinion doesn't match yours, but why are you so offended by that? Blizzard's not gonna change their policy, but I'm practicing my right to free speech.
Read the following carefully: I am not trying to change your mind. I am expressing my opinion. If you want to try and change my opinion, give me sound logical arguments or rebuttals of my premises, without the personal attacks. Your lack of meaningful rebuttal lead you to the tired ad-hominem implication that I'm having some kind of e-peen problem, when actually it's you who seem to have a butt full of hurting.
0
Agree. How D3 is even getting made is actually shocking when you do a business impact analysis on it.
Blizzard has a weird dilemma on their hands: Their cash cow is killing their innovation engine and product life cycle.
The obvious fix is Titan. Too bad Blizzard takes so goddamn long to do anything, by the time it's ready, it'll be too late imo.
0
What's wrong is their real motive is to increase WoW activity and subscriptions, not to promote Diablo 3. This promotion is definitely not intended for the active WoW subscribers already plugged into the system. The people who came up with this idea could not possibly care less about the current reliable revenue sources (aka humans paying monthly for WoW).
People are going to have a year's worth of WoW time, which will divide the community, not create a smooth transition from WoW to Diablo 3, which is how they are masquerading this move.
In reality, a transition from WoW to Diablo 3 is the exact opposite of what they want. They want potential Diablo 3 customers to subscribe to a year of WoW.
See it now?
0
It's a good (and kind of sad) point you raise. Ultimately, I think it boils down to the fact that gaming, and the expectations of gamers, has changed a lot since the golden PC years. EA and Activision have lead the massive corporate conglomeration of publishing, and in so doing, changed the gaming landscape such that end-users somehow feel more entitled, but less free.
5
While we're on the topic of fallacies, you've managed to include several in your rebuttal:
1. False dilemma: "If you support private enterprise protecting their products from theft, then by definition you also support governments violating your rights." It sounds ridiculous when you repeat your argument without using the second fallacy you employ:
2. Appeal to consequences of a belief: "I believe that a private company protecting their own intellectual property is a violation of my rights, therefore if I support Bliz protecting their intellectual property, I also support the government violating my legal rights." You're assuming your belief is true and using the consequences as the reason. Circular.
There's some old wisdom that I follow: If you set out your wallet in plain view and leave, someone is eventually going to take it. So don't leave your wallet laying around.
Is it legal to steal a wallet? Nope. Do I support stealing wallets? Nope. Do I leave my wallet laying around? Nope.
Bliz is keeping their code server-side for the same reason that banks keep money in safes: Because if people are provided no restrictions or restrictions without meaningful consequences, then the greedy and immoral, selfish, power-hungry crooks will fuck things up for everyone.
Need proof? Have a look at Wall Street.
2
But don't blame Blizzard. Blame the crooks and assholes who abuse open source.