What sets Blizzard apart from most other devs?

[kosie99]

So Warcraft, Diablo and WoW makes Next generation's top 100 PC games released since 2000, based on unit sales: http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?optio ... mitstart=9

In fact WC3, Diablo2 and WoW are amongst the top 10 games. And I am sure Starcraft would have been on the list as well if it was not since 2000.

So why is Blizzard so successful? Their games are not complex, in fact, WC and Starcraft are exactly the same, with just a different setting i.e build a base, build units and improve them.

Diablo is just simple as well, the same grind with no complex dialogue that may alter the course of the story. Just go out, kill monsters and get loot.

I think it is all down to timing and quality. These games were released when the market was ready for them. Lots of MMOs around, but WoW has the simplicity and accessibility that the market was waiting for. I know the mighty Codex don't like Blizzard games, but you cannot argue with the numbers, now can you?

Blizzard also take their time releasing a game, but when they do, you can be sure the quality is high. Maybe that is another factor that sets them apart from most other developers.

Nice to see NWN and BG in the list as well. As far as complexity and story in a game goes, Blizzard is definitely not in the same class as BioWare, but it is not what is important to the masses.

 

[Zomg]

They take an established game and make a higher production value copy of it. Diablo is their most original game in that respect, since it has a few qualitative differences from Rogue. But WoW is Everquest and Warcraft is Dune.

Their trick is actually good criticism, rather than production. They pick the right games to copy, with stuff that has a compelling core that they can scale up for mainstream consumption.

 

[Ryuken]

Timing and quality idd. And the fact that they do take their time for sequels, even if the games aren't all that new or innovating (WarCraft III for example). When I see some Lucasarts, EA, Ubisoft, Activision followups, you can be sure of it that they came a year or so after the original product and frankly put; it shows.

Other than that they're constantly building on franchises and won't try new settings/much new genres, ever, I think. They're content enough with what they have and have a fanbase that's just very loyal and/or Korean. Blizzard North had Diablo III and another secret project in the works, I think it's pretty obvious which project survived the big exodus...

 

[Zomg]

Also: Holy shit, that list is like a bad Codex acid trip.

 

[Kraken]

One thing that sets Blizzard apart from every other company is the support they offer for their games. They still support Starcraft, a game released in 97/98! No other company is even close to this. Add that they have a very good online offer in Battle.net, and that there are proffesional gamers playing both Starcraft and Warcraft, and you have a good foundation for making a longtime successful game.

All this makes very loyal customers, and because their games sell so much, they can afford to wait until a game is really finished (And have extensive beta tests). It also makes it possible for them to scrap games they don't feel offer the quality they should (Adventures of Warcraft, Starcraft:Ghost etc).

Speaking of not being innovative, they did actually make The Lost Vikings back in the days, a fairly innovative game with tons of humor and charm. And let's not forget Blackthorn either.

 

[Kraszu]

For me they definitely show that polishing game pays off in long time. When they have beta it is more polished then many gold versions and still they test it for months. I would not agree that sc is not complex it definitely is, the amount of different strategies seems limitless, theory of sc is big, knowlage that you need to play good in sc is very big and you have to be creative to be one of the best. They wanted to make game that is easy to play but very hard to master and they definitely succeed.

 

[dongle]

I was going to do a post about that list, but I suppose I'll do it here.

Odd that Oblivion's not on the PC list, isn't it? It does list it as a "franchise hit" under Morrowind. Now, Morrowind is listed as 300,000 sales on the PC, total franchise sales for all Elder Scrolls games as 990,000. Since Oblivion -is- listed as a franchise we can assume an absolute max of 690,000 copies sold, even if all the other ES games sold 0. Didn't they say they shifted 1.7 million in the first week? Is Bethesda full of shit? (rhetorical question)

Also, #100 on the PC list sold 210,000 units. Do we assume Oblivion slots in below that? Might not be that unrealistic, given four years of Morrowind sales only equaled 300,000.

Notice also that -no- Elder Scrolls games are listed in the console top 100. Position #100 sold 550,000 units, so we can assume less than that for Morrowind. Don't they say the Xbox version outsold the PC by like 10 to 1? Can't be more than double, given 300,000 for PC, and Xbox being less than 550,000.

I get the impression accurate sales numbers are a closely guarded industry secret. Wonder how accurate this list is?

 

[kosie99]

Also: Holy shit, that list is like a bad Codex acid trip.

Yes, I must say there were quite a few surprises, like "Who wants to be a millionaire", etc. Amazing that it was so popular...

 

[St. Toxic]

MMO Blizzard or classic Blizzard?

 

[kosie99]

<snip>
.
.
I get the impression accurate sales numbers are a closely guarded industry secret. Wonder how accurate this list is?

Yes, WoW is another example. It did not just sell 1.4 mill in the states, did it? I thought it was more than 3 million. Maybe this list is not a true reflection after all

 

[dongle]

Maybe this list is not a true reflection after all

Or, maybe it -is- a true reflection, and marketing departments are full of shit. I'd be more inclined to believe that, really.

BTW, here are handy links to the entire lists on one page (not 10) no adds. :D

PC top 100:
http://www.next-gen.biz/index2.php?opti ... d=11&pop=1

Top 100 console:
http://www.next-gen.biz/index2.php?opti ... d=34&pop=1

 

[Wirdschowerdn]

What sets Blizzard apart from most other devs?

Constantly developing top-quality games with top-quality support.

If you haven't figured that out yet, you're a total dumbass.

 

[RK47]

pity they never went deep RPG market
But u notice they stuck to their IPs pretty well, Warcraft, Starcraft & Diablo. That's it.
They pretty much snagged Asian market with Korea's fan base, you hardly see games that sold like Blizzard's across the globe.

Look, let's not fool ourselves here they sold over 3 million copies, or maybe less. But with over 1 mil active subscription, that's 10 mil of revenue coming every month.

Compare WoW & EQ 2 Expansion packs. How many released for WoW? Zero. EQ2? I never kept track but definitely a lot.

 

[hiciacit]

I was going to do a post about that list, but I suppose I'll do it here.

Odd that Oblivion's not on the PC list, isn't it? It does list it as a "franchise hit" under Morrowind. Now, Morrowind is listed as 300,000 sales on the PC, total franchise sales for all Elder Scrolls games as 990,000. Since Oblivion -is- listed as a franchise we can assume an absolute max of 690,000 copies sold, even if all the other ES games sold 0. Didn't they say they shifted 1.7 million in the first week? Is Bethesda full of shit? (rhetorical question)

Also, #100 on the PC list sold 210,000 units. Do we assume Oblivion slots in below that? Might not be that unrealistic, given four years of Morrowind sales only equaled 300,000.

Notice also that -no- Elder Scrolls games are listed in the console top 100. Position #100 sold 550,000 units, so we can assume less than that for Morrowind. Don't they say the Xbox version outsold the PC by like 10 to 1? Can't be more than double, given 300,000 for PC, and Xbox being less than 550,000.

I get the impression accurate sales numbers are a closely guarded industry secret. Wonder how accurate this list is?

They do say this though:
"Games are ranked by units sold; then by revenue generated. This tends to favor games released earlier, rather than later, and games which have spent a long time at a lower price point have also done well, but we wanted to reward longevity and popularity across all audiences, not just hardcore."
"Games are ranked according to the highest selling SKU only. Otherwise the list would be full of sports iterations and big brand spin-offs and sequels. In the case of a single intellectual property being used in multiple genres of game, however, each genre’s top SKU will be represented – we want to reward taking risks with IP."
"This list is for the U.S market only."

And perhaps OBlivion is still too 'young' to be included. Hard too imagine they would have all the numbers right up to this day. There could be a substantial delay of several months, maybe even a year.

Anyway, these numbers are a serious underrepresentation of world wide sales, me thinks.

EDIT: The explanation of how they ranked the games is on the final page:
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?o...=view&id=3695&Itemid=11&limit=1&limitstart=10

 

[Nightjed]

What sets Blizzard apart from most other devs?

That they havent released a thing for years and they still talk about them like they were some kind of gods or something, and maybe i should mention that most of the ppl responsible for those games that made the games that gave blizzard devs their street credit arent there anymore
in fact we should talk about how half assedly they managed the whole "ghost" issue

Talking about why blizzard rocks after they havent released anything other than a mmorpg in like 4 years is like giving bioware the developer of the year award in a year during which they didnt release anything .... uh ...

 

[Volourn]

"giving bioware the developer of the year award in a year during which they didnt release anything .... uh ..."

L0LLERZ!!!

 

[vrok]

Their games are not complex, in fact, WC and Starcraft are exactly the same

Funny. Just because they're easy to learn doesn't mean they aren't complex. SC is a bitch to master, which is why it's still the number one RTS. Just because you're used to playing games so abstract you have to read the manual to understand basic concepts like how to hurt stuff doesn't make games like these any less intelligent. Here you have to master the game for yourself, the manual won't help you past the idiot phase.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I'm not sure WC3 belongs on there. It wasn't really that good.

 

[dongle]

They do say this though:
"Games are ranked according to the highest selling SKU only. Otherwise the list would be full of sports iterations and big brand spin-offs and sequels."

Yep, OK, so only one Elder Scrolls title gets listed, the best selling one. Personally I would have listed games like Half-Life 1 & 2 as separate games, but I can see something like Madden would throw it off, so makes sense.

Still, Oblivion -is- listed under Morrowind as a "franchise hit". That means they must have included some kind of sales numbers. To me that says that initial surge of sales isn't as fantastic as were lead to believe. Less than 300,000 in the US.

If a PC release's SKU is the best selling, does that knock it off the console list? I think so. Which would definitely be proof that the PC Morrowind outsold the Xbox one.

"This list is for the U.S market only."
Anyway, these numbers are a serious underrepresentation of world wide sales, me thinks.

OK, so I can't compare this list to the 1.7 million worldwide figure. Still, it's a useful relative measure. I'd imagine the US market is their main one, and reflects the worldwide one on a smaller scale.

Hard numbers like this list don't get published that often in my experience. Games are more akin to books, than say music sales.

 

[Wysardry]

Another factor that increases Blizzard's sales figures is that their games have relatively low system requirements when released (as did EA's The Sims).

 

[Atrokkus]

Talking about why blizzard rocks after they havent released anything other than a mmorpg in like 4 years is like giving bioware the developer of the year award in a year during which they didnt release anything .... uh ...

Black Isle haven't released anything in, omg, how many years now? OH MY It's dead, too!

Blizzard's games that were released several years ago are alive to this day -- SC is a national sport in Korea and is favorite hobby of *all* the administrators in my town (and im pretty sure it is this way in many other countries), while Warcraft3 is actually evolving into something much beter than we deemed it before. Diablo 2? Well it's never dead -- I would totally play it right now, if only i had time for that.

MOREOVER, the fact that many employers left the company means shit. You can't really predict anything based on this arguement alone. You do realize that many of the best specialists in the industry would KILL to get into Blizzard? If you forgoten already, Boyarsky just recently moved there.

For Starcraft 2, they hire top gamers so that they could monitor the game balance -- that's mighty wise of them, and it demonstrates that they wont settle on something clearly less advanced than the original Starcraft -- and that's one helluva challenge.

Another great factor is that, at least according to Blizzard, they are pretty much independent, without having a greedy publisher breathing down their neck and cattle-prodding them, cutting down the development cycles. You do realize that Blizzard was decent enough to throw the initial design of SC:G in the trashbin solely because it didn't quite carry the spirit of the series -- that's something I respect them a lot. Yes, the project mayb ea rather dumb in the first place, but at least they are not just using the brand to pimp it around.

Funny. Just because they're easy to learn doesn't mean they aren't complex. SC is a bitch to master, which is why it's still the number one RTS.

My sentiments exactly. Blizzard have always employed the "easy to learn, fucking hard to master" principle, and it worked. It's not hard to learn the rules of chess, but would you be able to defeat Kasparov after a week of training? Same goes for Starcraft.

I'm not sure WC3 belongs on there. It wasn't really that good.

WEll, I do agree with that - it was somewhat less elegant in design. I wont talk about RoC being an insanely imbalanced game, because vanilla SC was pretty much as imbalanced -- both franchises were saved by the expansion sets (another great concept that Blizzard uses in all franchises). I can tell you this, however: even though it's still version 1.20, Warcraft3:TFT is evolving. There clearly is a framework for the diversity in possible strategies, and players prove that every month -- this all by itself eliminates the largely imaginary imbalance issues. Really, just watch the replays -- they never were so intersting to watch before, when I played the game semi-professionally.

 

[RK47]

don't forget the dota-kids. Fucking annoying pests. I swear. I hated WC3 simply for that alone >_<

Basically I rated their series in the following order:
1. Diablo
2. Warcraft (Just because they have MMO, not because of WC3)
3. Starcraft (Should've been no.2 if WoW is not included.

 

[Ryuken]

Another great factor is that, at least according to Blizzard, they are pretty much independent, without having a greedy publisher breathing down their neck and cattle-prodding them, cutting down the development cycles. You do realize that Blizzard was decent enough to throw the initial design of SC:G in the trashbin solely because it didn't quite carry the spirit of the series -- that's something I respect them a lot. Yes, the project mayb ea rather dumb in the first place, but at least they are not just using the brand to pimp it around.

Then why did Blizzard North jump ship? Blizzard is owned by Vivendi/Universal, and are not independent although their cancellations would let one suspect otherwise. As long as they have success I think VU will let them do whatever they want, as long as it sticks to the big selling franchises of course.

 

[hiciacit]

Still, Oblivion -is- listed under Morrowind as a "franchise hit". That means they must have included some kind of sales numbers. To me that says that initial surge of sales isn't as fantastic as were lead to believe. Less than 300,000 in the US.

If a PC release's SKU is the best selling, does that knock it off the console list? I think so. Which would definitely be proof that the PC Morrowind outsold the Xbox one.

Just because it's listed under Morrowind as a franchise hit, does not mean they already have sales statistics. The game did get a lot of critical acclaim in the end, so it's not that weird to assume it sold pretty well.

I'm not sure about the console vs. PC list either:

Other platform versions of that game, and 21st century precursors or sequels are included under the 'franchise sales' but do not affect overall placing.

This list only features games released since the introduction of PlayStation 2, Xbox and GameCube. It does not include handheld games or PC games which will be featured in a separate list.

Perhaps overall, compared to other genres, crappy ass RPGs are not the highest selling games.

Morrowind PC outclassed Morrowind Xbox, and Oblivion actually sold very poorly? I say: "Stop giving us false hope!" :wink:

 

[Atrokkus]

don't forget the dota-kids. Fucking annoying pests. I swear. I hated WC3 simply for that alone >_<

Yes, never forget the dota-kiddies. I always hated Dota, but it has nothing to do with Blizzard, just as Argonian nude mod has nothing to do with Bethesda.

Then why did Blizzard North jump ship? Blizzard is owned by Vivendi/Universal, and are not independent although their cancellations would let one suspect otherwise. As long as they have success I think VU will let them do whatever they want, as long as it sticks to the big selling franchises of course.

You might be right here, but I woulnd't speculate on that because we know little about their internal conflicts.