Starcraft II Delay Rumors Hurt Activision Stock

[Evil Avatar]

MarketWatch is reporting (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/activision-pressured-on-worries-about-game-delay-2009-07-28?siteid=yhoof) that Activision stock (ATVI) has dropped 14% in the last month partially due to fears that Stacraft II will be delayed into 2010.

Now, there is a growing concern that an even bigger game -- "StarCraft 2" -- may be pushed out of this year, due to development delays.

"The beta testing for 'StarCraft' hasn't started yet. If it starts in August and takes 5-6 months, then launching the game this year is next to impossible," said Jess Lubert, video game analyst with Brean Murray.

"StarCraft 2" is a PC-based science fiction game from Activision's Blizzard Entertainment unit, which also produces the blockbuster online multi-player title "World of Warcraft." The game has been expected to launch this fall in time for the holiday shopping season, which is when the video game industry typically draws the largest bulk of its sales.

This isn't the Blizzard of the good old days, I wouldn't count on a 5-6 month beta test. I wouldn't bet on a beta test at all if it comes down to a choice between a beta test and releasing the game on time.

[The Radical Cleric]

I've seen nothing to lead me to believe that Blizzard has slipped in the quality department. Beta testing for a title like this is absolutely essential; I guarantee there will be a lengthy beta test for Starcraft 2.

[Strider]

I'll remind you later, Cleric...

[PopoWRX]

They have a beta-opt in for SC on battle.net and an RTS game like this definitely requires more then just in-house beta testing, I have no doubt in my mind as well that Blizzard will do a CBT for it.

I don't think Blizzard will acquiesce to any Activision "pressure" to release this game before it is ready.

[The Radical Cleric]

Hey, I can admit it if I turn out to be wrong.

I don't work for Blizzard, I just think they're one of the best game companies around. I don't play WoW either, for that matter...

[Strider]

Just sayin'. We're already noticing the changes in Blizzard, e.g. Diablo3 and SC2 not having a LAN mode.

They're slaves of the activision stock now, I'm certain.

[PopoWRX]

Just sayin'. We're already noticing the changes in Blizzard, e.g. Diablo3 and SC2 not having a LAN mode.

They're slaves of the activision stock now, I'm certain.

Certainly if it does happen I'll acknowledge Blizzard is not the same ol' Blizzard but until otherwise proven, I'm thinking they still have their old priorities straight.

The LAN thing, while not something that is relevant for North America in terms of piracy, has a huge effect on piracy in China and makes me wonder if China is ever worth going after. I'm thinking WoW's "success" in China has made it somewhat of a priority for Blizzard but I'm sure the other markets take precedence for a game like Starcraft II.

[Strider]

Heh, the piracy argument is the same as terrorism or otherwise. It's not real, and stupid to think otherwise.

It's just about (total) control (of the software). The customer should be as dependant on the company as possible.

The 'real' software pirates laugh about this. Hard.

[Strider]

Please do not take my previous post as personal offense. Everything said by a human being is just an opinion :D

[Qoz]

Strider - you have the typical superficial attitude regarding piracy.

It's a fact, that the free battle.net features for all the Blizzard games, have made people buy their game because singleplayer wasn't enough. Later emulated b.net servers arose, but they are cracking down hard on these, and the stats you recieve there are hardly worht bragging about. Battle.net is great way to lure people into actually buying the software they perhaps pirated, because of extra features.

I know that singleplayer will get hacked and there will perhaps be an emulated bnet 2.0 server done in the future, but they will ridden with maphacks.

As you said.. "The 'real' software pirates laugh about this." Blizzard does not care about the 'real' pirates as they will pirate no matter what annoying hoops they need to jump through and they probably don't care about the new b.net features. The interesting people for Blizzard, are those potential customers that previously just copied the Starcraft1 folder from a friend and played on LAN. This segment of users are way more prone to buying the software if they get extra, and if they don't have to spend time on technical stuff (likek constantly searching and applying hacked updates etc.).

This isn't the Blizzard of the good old days, I wouldn't count on a 5-6 month beta test. I wouldn't bet on a beta test at all if it comes down to a choice between a beta test and releasing the game on time.
A silly thing to say. Why should they act differently, when they rake in the cash?

[Strider]

@Qoz.

You might think that of me, but no.

We live in a time where corporations greed is limitless. I am simply tired of stating all details, but it boils down to what I said. Again, I am sick and tired stating the obvious to people who've been blinded by greedy corporations and are even defending them.

At your last statement I say: because of greed. To rake in MORE cash. At least Activision thinks so.

----------------------------

Something I've said before is also that I've bought many many games in my life. So many that people seeing them question my sanity.

The next blizzard games might be the first I am not buying, because they're restricting my rights or features that are essential in today's games (LAN). Features with which they became popular, with my money.

I'll be playing the games anyway, all right.

[schmunkel98]

@Qoz.

You might think that of me, but no.

We live in a time where corporations greed is limitless. I am simply tired of stating all details, but it boils down to what I said. Again, I am sick and tired stating the obvious to people who've been blinded by greedy corporations and are even defending them.

At your last statement I say: because of greed. To rake in MORE cash. At least Activision thinks so.

----------------------------

Something I've said before is also that I've bought many many games in my life. So many that people seeing them question my sanity.

The next blizzard games might be the first I am not buying, because they're restricting my rights or features that are essential in today's games (LAN). Features with which they became popular, with my money.

I'll be playing the games anyway, all right.

Let's throw WoW completely out of the picture. You still have Battlenet as a free multiplayer service that has been up and running for what, 10 years? How is that greedy? They also still patch their games that came out in the 1990's! I'm sure once Starcraft 2 comes out and it is revered as digital awesome, everyone's concerns about Blizzard's quality will be laid to rest. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I have yet to be let down by anything Blizzard has made.

[Demo_Boy]

I guarantee there will be a lengthy beta test for Starcraft 2.

LOL

Shortly after Activision cancels IPs that can't be spun into 10 year sequel franchises, Starcraft turns into a trilogy so you'll pay $180 to experience the singleplayer campaign.

Then dropping breeder support for LAN play of the game.

Let's not even mention the murmurs of a monetization model being slipped into B.net.

I think it's clear that Activision moneyhats are ruling Blizzard at this point, good luck with your guarantee. Per your guarantee, mail me my free refund.

[Qoz]

#Demo_Boy
I would much rather have MORE Starcraft than having less.

Are you also mad at Jackson for making LOTR a trilogy?! He must have been money-mad!
Not all decisions like these are bad. LOTR in one movie would have been a disaster. SC without broodwar would have been a disaster also.

It's just Starcraft2 with 2 expansions, where they split the story into each segment. I fail to see what is so wrong with that. The GOOD thing is, that they can now experiment alot more with the story and way the campaigns are laid out. They will be very different, and could not have been done in one game.

#Strider
You argue that they will release some crappy game early, when they have NEVER done so in the past. Blizzard has been taken over, but they function like they have always done in the past. It would be insanely stupid to buy a golden company like Blizzard, and then ruin the money-machine by changing alot of things! It just doesn't make sense. Also Starcraft2 will be a seller through the years if it does the same as the original, so an early deadline doesn't matter, unless you have a desperate company in search for cash within the fiscal year (this is not the case).

I'm just tired of this auto-attack against big companies and decisions regarding money and features, where everyone thinks it's the big bad company behind forcing their evil on the world. Stop and think logical for a second... I know big companies have ruined developers in the past, but they have learned their lesson.

[Major Dan]

I all can do is wait and see. I have my doubts, but I have been wrong before. On the plus side, I can look forward to MW5!

[MasterEvilAce]

You know, StarCraft 2 is one of the few games where I wouldn't care if it had to be patched right after launch. It'll have patches no matter what, either way. And you need them for multiplayer.

Hell, I think StarCraft 1 has had a patch within the last year... So the support is there.

[Ulysses]

My heart bleeds for Activision and Blizzard. SC without Brood War wouldn't have been a disaster, with regards to the SP campaign anyway, the key things are wrapped up. Also the whole UED was rather uninspired (Earth forces show up...with the same gear as their outcasts).

[swiftdraw]

I all can do is wait and see. I have my doubts, but I have been wrong before. On the plus side, I can look forward to MW5!

+1 on all accounts. I really think merging with Activision was a mistake, and in the long run Blizzard will suffer for it. Maybe Activision will remain mostly hands off, but like what happened with Hasbro and Wizards of the Coast, a couple of missteps or developmental hiccups could have Activision tightening its control over Blizzard.

[Syl]

I'd imagine that part of the benefit of managing to have the company called "Activision Blizzard" means that blizzard retains a certain amount of CONTROL.

Ya know.

Just stating.

Delaying Starcraft II is exactly the type of thing that activision wouldn't do. I trust blizzard, they're going to stick to the "wait till its done" mentality, hence why we haven't had a sequel to starcraft in something like 18 years.

[Marticus]

I'm curious as to when Blizzard said the game will come out in 2009. Beta is the only preemptive to the game being close to release when it comes to Blizzard. In my humble opinion the game will be better if they take their time and have a long development cycle.

We'll be lucky if it isn't pushed back to 2011

[Kapinator]

Having worked for and with Vivendi Games both before and after the Activision merger, Blizzard is as separate an organization as one can get in a big publisher like Activisy-Blizzy.

Mike Moreheim calls all the shots for Blizzard, that's unquestioned. If Blizzard titles ever drop in quality or popularity that might change but until then I'd not bet that Activision has one single word to say WRT Blizzard (other than thank you for generating about 60%+ of their revenue and 80% of their profit).

[HarverdGrad]

Meanwhile, it's still 21% higher than it was at the beginning of the year :D
The rest of the market is in the shitter right now.. Activision seems to be doing something right.

[Jotoco]

Still it will put pressure on Blizzard.

I'm not worried about the quality of the final product, it is guaranteed.

I'm worried it will take some more patches than we first thought. From where I see it, the game is fairly complete and reasonably balanced. Activision may force then to release it this way and patch it to perfection later.

I'm not really upset about this, even unbalanced, unpolished (heck, even unfinished!) starcraft is still better tan 99,99% of other RTS's around.

[Jack9]

LOL
blah blah blah...

Then dropping breeder support for LAN play of the game.

...blah blah blah

This was an important technical step that Blizzard should have started with Diablo2. Unfortunately, internet access wasn't as sure to be ubiquitous, as it is now. Introducing LAN play hurts the development in terms of time (due to complexity), effort (wasted, not to mention reduction in features), and piracy (you can't introduce network dependent changes if it breaks the LAN version). Anyone who thinks this was a greed issue over a quality issue, is technically inept. That's all there is to it.

[Jotoco]

This was an important technical step that Blizzard should have started with Diablo2. Unfortunately, internet access wasn't as sure to be ubiquitous, as it is now. Introducing LAN play hurts the development in terms of time (due to complexity), effort (wasted, not to mention reduction in features), and piracy (you can't introduce network dependent changes if it breaks the LAN version). Anyone who thinks this was a greed issue over a quality issue, is technically inept. That's all there is to it.

If they are NOT going to re-route the traffic of local gameplay like a LAN, then they are stupid. Because they will overload their servers, the players internet e cause MASSIVE lag. It will be known as one of the stupidiest things in all history.

And if they are going to re-route anyway, I don't see they spending more than an afternoon to put a a button of some sort, write "LAN" on it and make the game look for players on the LAN it was already going to use, instead of making you use usernames, IP Addresses or something and THEN route the traffic through LAN.

[Jotoco]

And if you want to say that stat tracking, anti-cheat and some other sort of control wouldn't exist in LAN I say you're right.

And two things:

1 - I don't give a damn about it;
2 - It proves people's point, it is to keep control of the game. Not because it is difficult to code in.

[Ulysses]

Odd how you figure LAN would cause other features to get cut as SC2's deadline isn't hard by any means thanks to the public and I doubt it is complex for their team to develop. For piracy, those are lost sales anyway and for those that are borderline, there will most likely be a hack to trick the game into connecting to a fake bnet. More a control issue than anything else


I'm not really upset about this, even unbalanced, unpolished (heck, even unfinished!) starcraft is still better tan 99,99% of other RTS's around.


Er...ok

[asimplehero]

They are seriously starting to over think things. There have been so many units and spells put in and taken out that its just becoming a cluster. I think SC1 might be too hard of an act to follow. I mean now there are units in the single player that aren't even in the multi.

The beauty of SC1 is that most everything just fit. They had units that made sense in the universe and then they just tweaked their stats over time to balance multiplayer. Of course, that was before Zealots became space ninjas and world-of-the-world colossi roamed the galaxy.

[PopoWRX]

They are seriously starting to over think things. There have been so many units and spells put in and taken out that its just becoming a cluster. I think SC1 might be too hard of an act to follow. I mean now there are units in the single player that aren't even in the multi.

The beauty of SC1 is that most everything just fit. They had units that made sense in the universe and then they just tweaked their stats over time to balance multiplayer. Of course, that was before Zealots became space ninjas and world-of-the-world colossi roamed the galaxy.

I have absolutely no problems with single player only units. In fact, single player is what I am most looking forward to in SC2 so the more they work on SP the better for me. I think separating the two entities is a great thing to do, look at how balanced Guild Wars PVP is when their PVP system is separated from PVE. By allowing for unique/op units in SP, you can do mission types where maybe you wouldn't be able to do with the regular/multi-enabled units. The Zealots have that charge/speed upgrade to obviously deal with ranged units and I don't see how a large robot that shoots death lasers is somehow out of context with the heavily mechanized army of the Protoss.

[Misanthropist]

I personally see the game getting delayed just like the original did, and diablo 2, and warcraft 3. in the end if they introduce even more features into bnet then that is fucking great!

lan plan is sad, but man, i admit i played war3 on pirated servers first even in the BETA. i of course bought the game REGARDLESS of lan play. and i will do the same for sc2 just because i have wanted it for so long.

And as i mentioned, increasing the complexity and awesomeness of bnet is long overdue. tournys in war 3 were good but...more is better.