Blizzard Dropped Over $100 Million On StarCraft II

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

T_ConX:

tautologico:
Oh yes, as always, blame it on Kotick.

SnwMan:
Kotick has no control over blizzard.

Reyalsfeihc:
First of all, Bobby Kotick has no control over Blizzard as stated in the merger agreement.

Incoming TOLD in T-minus 3... 2... 1...

TOLD!

Official Site of Activision | Blizzard - About Us - Board of Directors:
Robert A. Kotick
Director; President and Chief Executive Officer of Activision Blizzard.

There you have it. Right from the mouth of the demon himself.

Or, since it seems that none of you even read the news article...

tautologico:

Activision-Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick has described StarCraft II as one of the company's seven "pillars of opportunity," which could each provide more than $500 million and up to even $1 billion in profit over the total product life span. With millions of copies expected to sell this year alone at $60 a pop, StarCraft II could be in the black before we celebrate 2011.

You guys make this too easy.

Reyalsfeihc:

Second, There's been no news about "premium maps" because Blizzard has never done map packs since when you join a game you download any map you don't have automatically.

Commander! A swarm of TOLD has appeared on our RADAR! It's about to hit us!

1UP: StarCraft II Will Support Premium Maps
ShackNews: StarCraft 2 to Support Priced Maps, Mods
KotakuBlizzard: You May Sell Your StarCraft 2 Maps On Battle.net, Eventually

So there you have it. How about you try just a little harder next time... ok?

Yes, I suggest you read more closely ;) "designers will be able to set their own price tags." (1UP) The designers are selling the maps, not Blizzard (though they undoubtedly get a cut). It's App Store/Steam, not Stimulus Package.

Bobby Kotick is the president of Activision-Blizzard, which is the renamed Vivendi Games (which included Blizzard) after Vivendi bought a controlling share in Activision. Blizzard retains a strong policy of autonomy from everyone I've talked to on both sides of the ATVI and Blizzard fences.

Which means of course that blaming Activision for Blizzard's screwups is mindbogglingly ignorant. Lay the blame for, say, BNet2.0 being subpar at Blizzard's feet where the blame deserves instead of just pointing at Bobby Kotick. Autonomy works both ways, y'know.

SnwMan:
I see your point, however i still maintain that blizzard has its own autonamy.

Couple what the guy above you said with this, this, this, and the fact that they even considered mandatory Real ID for their forums, and I think you will find that either their average IQ has dropped by about 30 points, or that they suddenly started sharing the money grubbing need of Kotick, Thomas Tippl or whoever else there is above them.

ciortas1:

SnwMan:
I see your point, however i still maintain that blizzard has its own autonamy.

Couple what the guy above you said with this, this, this, and the fact that they even considered mandatory Real ID for their forums, and I think you will find that either their average IQ has dropped by about 30 points, or that they suddenly started sharing the money grubbing need of Kotick, Thomas Tippl or whoever else there is above them.

What in hells name has Real ID to do with Activision / Kotick?
Fortunately I can direct you to the post above yours.

Jesus frigging Christ. Real ID has quite a lot good things going even though it has just as much if not more flaws. But WHY can't Blizzard decide to do it? Why must it be Kotick and Activision? Why do you focus on it so hard man? Ahh right, you're going with the mainstream mob mentioning Kotick and Activision in every single Blizzard thread that exist.
Damn it. Do some researches before you hate.

I was totally on board with StarCraft 2 right up to the point I heard they were breaking it up into 3 games. Sorry Blizzard BIG dick move there. I detest this even more than I detest development houses that gimp their core product so they can provide "bonus" DLC at a future time. Mike Morhaime can come lick the crust out of my ass crack before I pay 60 dollars for a third of a game.

Well you don't deserve to play this anyways.
It's a game with two add-ons that were pre-announced in preparation of the campaign. But you can just lick some crust out of asses until you check your sources.
The more I think about it the clearer it gets. There's no need to flame haters like you as the biggest punishment is not playing this game anyways.
I mean I argue mostly for those fellow commentary readers to build up their own opinion. And unless they're stupid they'll be able to filter good posts from... posts alike yours.

I don't understand why people complain about splitting the game into three parts, while by that logic, they split the first game into two.

I would day that amount includes the marketing and all the infrastructure for the new Battle net.

the game was probably half that.

GoGo_Boy:
Well you don't deserve to play this anyways.
It's a game with two add-ons that were pre-announced in preparation of the campaign. But you can just lick some crust out of asses until you check your sources.
The more I think about it the clearer it gets. There's no need to flame haters like you as the biggest punishment is not playing this game anyways.
I mean I argue mostly for those fellow commentary readers to build up their own opinion. And unless they're stupid they'll be able to filter good posts from... posts alike yours.

Your think your post is good? Just carrying on about someone who has decided not to buy the game because BlActivision have already set it up as 3 fucking seperate games. They have 10 times more $$$ than ever before and they have to pull this?

You can call it hating but I personally don't agree with this method either. When Starcraft and the Warcraft games were released you could play all 3 factions in the campaign, and it worked really well. This move forces you to buy the other expansions to play all 3 (in campaign and story). This actually wasn't a deal breaker to me but I still don't like it.

Don't think that they wont try to incentivize you purchasing the other campaigns. Expect to own all 3 campaign in order to properly play in multiplayer 100%. As it stands right now, suppossedly youll only need one campaign to play multiplayer, then why would I want to purchase the other campaigns when all most people really care about is the multiplayer? Yeah, that question doesn't fit into the new Blizz mindset (where greed rules over game). No this would not sit well with the accountants.

I -almost- feel the need to hand in my gamer card ... cause well i just dont give a crap about sc2. I rolled my eyes at the "Oh boy lets buy it 3 times thing" , im willing to accept (mostly) the more content arguement. I think my primary interest was in seeing the new units and whatnot, but since i got accepted into the beta i was able to fullfil that by hopping on and playing all the factions against the computer, since well ive never enjoyed the "OMG this is a sport!1!!1!!!1!!!" multiplayer aspect that seems to be starcraft zerg rush cheeseball tactics and all. If im lucky the "expansions" will be out sooner then later and they'll have a battlechest and then that will be on sale. I can see myself buying it then. Until then ill wait to dismember zombies that looks more amusing.

(pointed at Nazalu)

Dude the only frigging issue you have is not playing all 3 races during the campaign which is so WAYNE.
Playing 3 short campaign walkthroughs as each race has no advantage man. No advantage apart from being able to say "I played as all 3 races". They else had to cut down a lot elements especially regarding the story and lore. They said so in an interview and it's common sense.
Want an example? Yes?
Blizzard implanted a global tech update system for the campaign that allows you to research tech trees that are then permanent. Now there's little to no point in doing this 3 times for only 9-10 missions per race. I mean the part is over after 10 missions anyways and the upgrades of course can't switch over to other races.
And then the story. As you know there are about 29-30 missions in SC2 each with filled with lore and story. They would've cut a lot of it.
The whole recruiting mercs, the Hyperion as a base etc. would've been way too much work if it had to be done for all 3 races in this one game.

Every mission will be different anyways. Why would you want to play Zerg and Toss in the campaign so hardly? It's not like multiplayer cuts it out.

And Mike M. said expansions where pretty much set up from the beginning of developing SC2: Wings of Liberty. Every Blizzard game has Add-ons and they were all worth it's price. Everyone would've expected Add-ons for future titles anyways (Diablo 3 will get those too, trust me).
So now instead of making this 3*10missions, lack in lore, story and gameplay mechanics campaign they give you 3 epic ones.

Please don't tell me the game won't be worth it's money lmao. Even the cinematics and world editor alone are worth more than most full price titles out there.

Tell me what games YOU play. You must have some very, very high demands man.

And last but not least some videos to give some visual proves.
Will edit them in.
youtube-tags don't work for newer members?
Well you get some links then.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcKvrEgSlhY
Here an in-engine cut scene.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AJz7Oiluj4&feature=related
Here the NBA advertisement showing the fully pre-rendered cinematic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP1-c5yXGnE
And here a video from Blizzcon 2008 regarding gameplay and campaign
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9JOKhoI9nY

Last but not least I'd like to know which strategy game is on-par with this? Right, none even remotely.

Oh NO! thats nearly a whole Month's worth of WoW revenue!

guess they must have had to forgo the gold powered roller coaster rides for a month.

I don't care how you defend it. A single stand alone game simply isn't worth 200 dollars even if they are letting you make it in three easy payments. Hell the last game I pad 200 dollars for came with a fully functioning mech control panel. You can buy an entire console for that much anymore. And before you say it's three different games it's not. It's one game gimped to be sold in three parts. You honestly believe you will be able to play any semblance of multiplayer w/o all three parts? Don't kid yourself. An expansion I can deal with but this bullshit of charging 200 dollars for the completed game is simply offensive. This is a cash grab pure and simple and there is no way of justifying paying three times over for a single game.

Well, there's no doubt this game will make back that money in the first week. I'm just gonna call that now.

This is a game I'm willing to pay for despite Activision/Blizzard's crap in the past, since it's such a good game. Even though I'km torn, i can't say no.

GoGo_Boy:
snip

O_O

Whoa, all of that is in the game? Well then, it makes this one campaign worth 60 bucks after all, especially since we can still play unhindered in online.

Thank you for the info.

Xanthious:
I was totally on board with StarCraft 2 right up to the point I heard they were breaking it up into 3 games. Sorry Blizzard BIG dick move there.

Why do people keep insisting on this point? Why? WHY? WHYYYYYY?

We knew that the game was going to have expansions, all Blizzard games have, all blizzard did was saying that instead of 1 game and 2 expansions each with 3 campaigns, we would get one game and 2 expansions each with a triple sized campaign, and would take advantage of the more focused development to provide a different experience for each.

Heck, this can even save you money, a friend of mine has outright stated that since he has no interest in the Terran campaign, he won't get this one until the next expansion is out since the price is likely to have gone down by then. And if the expansions turn out to be standalone he might not even get it.

However what annoys me the most is how hypocritical the reaction feels. Many recent RTS cut significantly on the campaigns, and you never heard complains about them. Heck, Dawn of War had 4 races and one 10 level campaign for only one of them, it wasn't until the expansions that the other races got a campaign and they were shared campaigns at that. DoW2 has one expansion so far, likely to get several more, and there isn't even a hint that the other races will get a shot at a campaign.

SC2, by all accounts, is going to have an extremely developed and long campaign, miles better than whatever the competition has come up with so far. This kind of reaction wouldn't even happen if Blizzard had worded the expansions announcement differently.

GoGo_Boy:
What in hells name has Real ID to do with Activision / Kotick?
Fortunately I can direct you to the post above yours.

Jesus frigging Christ. Real ID has quite a lot good things going even though it has just as much if not more flaws. But WHY can't Blizzard decide to do it? Why must it be Kotick and Activision? Why do you focus on it so hard man? Ahh right, you're going with the mainstream mob mentioning Kotick and Activision in every single Blizzard thread that exist.
Damn it. Do some researches before you hate.

What should I research for? After the merger, Blizzard has people above them and there's just no way around it; and until I see a written and signed paper by everybody from the above that they "mind their own business and let Blizzard mind theirs", my opinion that they're probably being influenced by people whose only concern is money will not be invalid. Of course, they're capable of bad decisions, but they can't possibly keep willingly committing to them to be less and less user friendly, at least not in my head.

Xanthious:
I don't care how you defend it. A single stand alone game simply isn't worth 200 dollars. Hell the last game I pad 200 dollars for came with a fully functioning mech control panel. You can buy an entire console for that much anymore. And before you say it's three different games it's not. It's one game gimped to be sold in three parts. You honestly believe you will be able to play any semblance of multiplayer w/o all three parts? Don't kid yourself. An expansion I can deal with but this bullshit of charging 200 dollars for the completed game is simply offensive. This is a cash grab pure and simple and there is no way of justifying paying three times over for a single game.

Every single point of your entire argument is stupid, so just drop it. Nobody's making you buy that game, GoGo_Boy only pointed out that whatever you may think of SC2 (full, 1/3 of a game or whatever), it's already bigger than any single RTS game ever made. And after taking into account the endless possibilities of user content through the Galaxy Editor, it becomes obvious that if there's any RTS that's worth its price tag, it's Starcraft 2.

And about that multiplayer part - it's already better and more balanced than that of the original Starcraft, which is often touted as the best RTS game ever made. And did I mention that there were already major SC2 tournaments while it was still in the beta?

Also, take your "I don't care how you defend it" statement and shove it if you want to participate in an argument, because it just shows your ignorance and stubbornness.

Whatever Xanthious. Arguing with you is like keep bumping my head into a brick wall.
I don't even know how 60+50+50 equals 200 but in your little world. Fine. You're not willing to pay about 150-170$ for a Blizzard game with 2 add-ons. Your choice and perhaps the game sucks really bad and you won't feel like missing out something great.

Last comment towards you.

And yeah Xocrates I can't even imagine the hatred towards other developers if people complain this hard about Starcraft 2. Got the same thought about DoW2. Haven't seen one complaining about its Add-on that came out rather quickly and the fact there are most likely more to come.

This game is going to be pirated so hard....

I am looking forward to it. But I hate the MP. Again another MP with no strategy but build fast and cheap...

By now, wouldn't $100 million be the equivelent of blizzard's weekly pocket money?

I can recall a decade ago when I saw the ads for SC2 at Gamestop, and back then I was excited about that prospect. Skip ahead to 2010, I'd have to say the heat has severely died down for me to the point where I'm not really sure I can about this game coming out. I've been able to see more about Diablo 3 than StarCraft, and I'm still somewhat excited about Diablo 3. I can imagine that the few details about SC that I remember will probably either be very different or gone by now, and they will probably release a box set once all three games finally come out, so I wouldn't rush out and buy each "episode" as they were released anyhow.
This game was starting to approach Duke Nukem-like release dates, so I hope it lives up to everyone else's expectations. I'll remain cautiously optomistic from the sidelines. Thanks anyway Blizzard. Here's to hoping we don't have to wait another two years to see Diablo 3 hit the market, or another five years to see the end of StarCraft 2 on the market.

John Funk:

Rakkana:

JerrytheBullfrog:

Rakkana:
I'm going to play starcraft 1 until it's cheap.

Take that blizzard! Pull this crap on diablo again and I'll boycott you for good!

Pull this crap?

...spending lots of money and time on a game until it's great? That's kind of their schtick you know.

Or did you mean the $60 price (which was also for WC3 and Diablo 2) and expansions (which every Blizzard game has had)?

SC1 is a great game to play tho :)

I mean the price and the mucked around release date.

I've also heard their releasing each character class in a different expansion pack. So we have to may extra for full content. Don't know if it's true or not but my previous reasons are enough for me to be pissed.

Also you don't know if it's great yet. All we have is a few game play videos.

You're joking, right?

And yes, SC2 is great.

uppitycracker:

John Funk:
So that's what, $10m per year? ;)

I'd really be curious to see the breakdown of expenses here, to get a feeling for how much it'll cost them to make the expansions. Obviously they have the core engine and units and the like, but they still need to do CGI (mmmm, Blizzard CGI), voice-overs, new animations, etc.

well i'm sure a LOT of this had to do with redesigning battle.net, as well as creating a lot of structure for the multiplayer and the overall engine. i'd think that hte expansions, sitting on existing architecture, should be significantly cheaper to produce.

True. I wish they'd spent more on B.net 2.0 though. Kinda a mess right now.

Meh people said WC3 was great but the AI was crap leaving the game watered down............

John Funk:
True. I wish they'd spent more on B.net 2.0 though. Kinda a mess right now.

Hopefully they'll clean it up within a month or two of release. I know that having it right away would have been what should have happened, but at least they're addressing our concerns and working on them.

Also, the campaign will probably keep be busy until that patch comes out.

GodKlown:
I can recall a decade ago when I saw the ads for SC2 at Gamestop

I wonder how they did that, as the game was only announced 3 years ago.

Im excited for this game. Its the Star Craft dev teams big chance to prove to the fans that after over a decade of working and 100million spent that they have been doing somthing other then watching subscription porn on company time. I hope that they succeed

Is it right to include advertising and promotion as part of development costs?

I smell activision meddling again, why advertise on the side of 747s of all thing?!? Makes me think they spent money on far more frivolous advertising. Maybe I am being idealistic but surely if the game is good from such a popular franchise and proven developer... why blow so much on marketing?

Eatbrainz:
By now, wouldn't $100 million be the equivelent of blizzard's weekly pocket money?

12 000 000 WOW users x $15 subs = $180 000 000

Yeah, more like HALF of a single month's revenue.

The only reason I would buy all three games is if they actually add new things to the online play with each new game. If online play stays the same, I am not going to spend 60 dollars on a game when nothing is added to the only part of the game that is important. RTS's are always about facing off against other people.

Treblaine:
Is it right to include advertising and promotion as part of development costs?

I smell activision meddling again, why advertise on the side of 747s of all thing?!? Makes me think they spent money on far more frivolous advertising. Maybe I am being idealistic but surely if the game is good from such a popular franchise and proven developer... why blow so much on marketing?

Lol, the same for you. Read John Funk's last post. This indeed hilarious.
And what's so bad about advertisement? Jesus ._.

I think Bobby Kotick ordered you to type that, his influence also made you greedy.

I don't think it'll be that big of a deal to them in the long run, they just have to postpone wallpapering the den with WOW money, which is probably the last room in the house. I like the "ready when it's ready" approach; it beats having it half done and disappointing the fans who have been waiting so long.

I'm so glad they got WoW even though I'm not interested in it as a Gamer.
Because thanks to this MMORPG Blizzard can take their time with SC2 and the other games.

Then again who else but Blizzard would be able to create such a MMORPG ;o

GoGo_Boy:

Treblaine:
Is it right to include advertising and promotion as part of development costs?

I smell activision meddling again, why advertise on the side of 747s of all thing?!? Makes me think they spent money on far more frivolous advertising. Maybe I am being idealistic but surely if the game is good from such a popular franchise and proven developer... why blow so much on marketing?

Lol, the same for you. Read John Funk's last post. This indeed hilarious.
And what's so bad about advertisement? Jesus ._.

I think Bobby Kotick ordered you to type that, his influence also made you greedy.

(Ordered me to type... HUH? I was CRITICISING Kotick, why would he order me to criticise him?)
(Same for me? WHAT! Huh?)

Well I'd like to say in my defence that I DO think it is EXTREMELY important to get people to know about your product or service to be successful... but the type of advertising like plastering on the side of a 747, that is wasteful and people just phases that stuff out.

Basically I object to marketing that is blunt, frivolous and overly expensive.

I'd be FAR more impressed if they unveiled a CLEVER advertising campaign rather than a brute force tens-of-millions-of-dollars campaign. I mean 99% of the people who see a 747 with that ad on the side likely wouldn't give a damn, but what about more targeted advertising.

I HAET having to sit through ads that have ZERO APPEAL to me at all, I'm willing to accept cookies that track me and my profile as long as I don't have to sit through another 30-second tampon advert to watch TV shows online. I now that's not the MOST relevant analogy for certain game's exorbitant ad campaigns but you get my drift right?

John Funk:
Yes, I suggest you read more closely ;) "designers will be able to set their own price tags." (1UP) The designers are selling the maps, not Blizzard (though they undoubtedly get a cut). It's App Store/Steam, not Stimulus Package.

Nice that you mention the App Store, where Apple has to approve every app that goes on sale, and then takes a cut of the sales as well. That's what's gonna happen on BattleNet.

John Funk:
Bobby Kotick is the president of Activision-Blizzard, which is the renamed Vivendi Games (which included Blizzard) after Vivendi bought a controlling share in Activision. Blizzard retains a strong policy of autonomy from everyone I've talked to on both sides of the ATVI and Blizzard fences.

Which means of course that blaming Activision for Blizzard's screwups is mindbogglingly ignorant. Lay the blame for, say, BNet2.0 being subpar at Blizzard's feet where the blame deserves instead of just pointing at Bobby Kotick. Autonomy works both ways, y'know.

To suggest that the Director, President and Chief Executive Officer of a company doesn't exercise any control over that company is just lunacy. OK, he's most defiantly not standing over the shoulders of Blizzards staff IN PERSON, but considering his shenanigans at Infinity Ward, it's safe to make the assumption the he's been pulling some strings at Blizzard as well.

Well deserved, that game is huge.

Heck, I think half of the competitive gaming scene is composed of either Blizzard games or games inspired by Blizzard games (DotA)

T_ConX:

John Funk:
Yes, I suggest you read more closely ;) "designers will be able to set their own price tags." (1UP) The designers are selling the maps, not Blizzard (though they undoubtedly get a cut). It's App Store/Steam, not Stimulus Package.

Nice that you mention the App Store, where Apple has to approve every app that goes on sale, and then takes a cut of the sales as well. That's what's gonna happen on BattleNet.

John Funk:
Bobby Kotick is the president of Activision-Blizzard, which is the renamed Vivendi Games (which included Blizzard) after Vivendi bought a controlling share in Activision. Blizzard retains a strong policy of autonomy from everyone I've talked to on both sides of the ATVI and Blizzard fences.

Which means of course that blaming Activision for Blizzard's screwups is mindbogglingly ignorant. Lay the blame for, say, BNet2.0 being subpar at Blizzard's feet where the blame deserves instead of just pointing at Bobby Kotick. Autonomy works both ways, y'know.

To suggest that the Director, President and Chief Executive Officer of a company doesn't exercise any control over that company is just lunacy. OK, he's most defiantly not standing over the shoulders of Blizzards staff IN PERSON, but considering his shenanigans at Infinity Ward, it's safe to make the assumption the he's been pulling some strings at Blizzard as well.

Yes, but it's still the designers choosing whether to sell their apps in the first place (and for how much). If it encourages people to develop awesome maps like DotA and actually get recompense for it, then I am all for it. And of course Blizzard is going to have to approve it - do you really think they'd be so stupid as to let people make money on their platform without giving the thumbs up?

And yes, I am aware of Bobby Kotick's role. I also have spoken with many Blizzard and Activision employees who have been told that Blizzard has pretty much complete autonomy to do what it wants.

At the ActiBlizz earnings calls, Bobby Kotick and other Activision executives report on the state of every one of their studios and IPs like Tony Hawk, Guitar Hero, Infinity Ward, Treyarch, Raven, etc... except Blizzard's, which is reported by Mike Morhaime. It's also (as far as I'm aware) the only company under the Activision umbrella that self-publishes its titles. That's why you don't see an Activision logo anywhere on the SC2 box - and it's the same as it was under Vivendi, where it had pretty much complete autonomy given its highly lucrative track record.

Look, I understand some concern, but what really irritates me is how people are quick to applaud Blizzard for all of the "good" things they do, but then spin around to blame Bobby Kotick for all the "bad" things. If it's good, it's Blizzard, if it's bad it's Kotick. That's just not how it works. I firmly believe that Blizzard is one of the most talented groups in the industry today, but it isn't infallible, and to suddenly blame an unrelated party for something you don't like feels like you're just diluting the issue. They make mistakes, and they should be rightly chastised for it.

Take IWnet for Modern Warfare 2. Everyone blamed Activision for it ... but then Treyarch said that Black Ops would still use dedicated servers, so it clearly wasn't an Activision order. Bobby Kotick and Activision are far, far too busy running a multibillion-dollar international corporation to micromanage things like that.

ZippyDSMlee:

Meh people said WC3 was great but the AI was crap leaving the game watered down............

The "Insane" StarCraft 2 AI right now is absolutely brutal. Just for the record :) I certainly can't beat it.

tehroc:
Don't think that they wont try to incentivize you purchasing the other campaigns. Expect to own all 3 campaign in order to properly play in multiplayer 100%. As it stands right now, suppossedly youll only need one campaign to play multiplayer, then why would I want to purchase the other campaigns when all most people really care about is the multiplayer? Yeah, that question doesn't fit into the new Blizz mindset (where greed rules over game). No this would not sit well with the accountants.

I just checked Battle.net. There are almost as many people playing vanilla Reign of Chaos as there are playing Frozen Throne. So A.) they've already done this (require you to have expansions to play multiplayer) and B.) if you don't want to buy the expansions you'll still have hundreds of thousands of people to play with.

Treblaine:

GoGo_Boy:

Treblaine:
Is it right to include advertising and promotion as part of development costs?

I smell activision meddling again, why advertise on the side of 747s of all thing?!? Makes me think they spent money on far more frivolous advertising. Maybe I am being idealistic but surely if the game is good from such a popular franchise and proven developer... why blow so much on marketing?

Lol, the same for you. Read John Funk's last post. This indeed hilarious.
And what's so bad about advertisement? Jesus ._.

I think Bobby Kotick ordered you to type that, his influence also made you greedy.

(Ordered me to type... HUH? I was CRITICISING Kotick, why would he order me to criticise him?)
(Same for me? WHAT! Huh?)

Well I'd like to say in my defence that I DO think it is EXTREMELY important to get people to know about your product or service to be successful... but the type of advertising like plastering on the side of a 747, that is wasteful and people just phases that stuff out.

Basically I object to marketing that is blunt, frivolous and overly expensive.

I'd be FAR more impressed if they unveiled a CLEVER advertising campaign rather than a brute force tens-of-millions-of-dollars campaign. I mean 99% of the people who see a 747 with that ad on the side likely wouldn't give a damn, but what about more targeted advertising.

I HAET having to sit through ads that have ZERO APPEAL to me at all, I'm willing to accept cookies that track me and my profile as long as I don't have to sit through another 30-second tampon advert to watch TV shows online. I now that's not the MOST relevant analogy for certain game's exorbitant ad campaigns but you get my drift right?

How much do you think it cost to have a Korean Air 747 painted Starcraft? Ten thousand dollars? Fifty? That's probably a drop in the bucket. I think the development cost mainly comes from paying a huge team for six or seven years. That adds up.

Especially since I havent seen many SC2 ads anywhere. Well other than during the NBA stuff (and here on the site). It's not nearly as hpyed as MW2 was.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here