|
|
 |
| [Mar 07, 2011, 10:24 pm ET] - Share - Viewing Comments |
The Blizzard Entertainment 20th Anniversary Trailer offers "a message from Blizzard Entertainment’s founders, interviews with developers, video retrospectives, and more." There's also an interview on VentureBeat talking with Blizzard CEO Paul Sams on the occasion. Here's part of his look back: "Back in the early days, we didn’t think 20 years out into the future. We didn’t think it was possible to have the type of success we have been fortunate enough to have. But when I sit back and I reflect on these two decades, it’s been an incredible ride for us. We’ve maintained our core mission of making the most out of our games. We focus on making the most epic entertainment experiences ever, and I think we’ve really stuck with our values. It drives our decisions and has allowed us to provide a level of consistency in what we’ve been able to deliver. We have been able to make many of the top-selling PC games in the world for many years. It’s tough to run a successful company for 20 years. We are very proud and humbled by it."
Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.
 |
| 30. |
Re: 20 Years of Blizzard |
Mar 8, 2011, 23:51 |
Cram |
|
|
Yifes wrote on Mar 8, 2011, 23:00:
Real stuff though, mind you; splitting Starcraft 2 apart, dropping lan support or selling horses on Wow doesn't count.
Again, the same old retarded arguments that never held any water. Yes man, JRR Tolkien is a total dick for splitting LOTR apart into 3 books. And the same with Star Wars, and every trilogy ever made.
It's difficult trying to have a respectful debate with those that have such a immense sense of entitlement, as well as the inability to support anything they're saying.
I can't fathom how Blizzard supporting one of their franchises with two guaranteed expansions is an issue with anyone. Like Yifes said, it's ok if LotR or SW is split up, but it's unacceptable if SC2 is. I don't get it. What if there had been three campaigns in the original release and then no expansions, that was it. The same people would now be upset about the complete lack of expansions to the game and then say things like, for example, "Activision moved all the SC2 people to Titan instead of making new content for SC2 so Titan can come out faster and Activision can make lots of $" On top of that, these same people would be further upset about how much longer SC2 would have taken to be released had it contained three equally sized campaigns at release. SC2 would still be in development this very moment if that had been the case.
I already expressed my disappointment with the LAN issue, and I don't even own or play the game. All I was trying to say was that there is no way to confirm Activision was responsible for that decision. In ones opinion they may think Activision was the cause, but there is no way to know that for sure. For Microtransactions, like the horse I mentioned, Blizzard is simply filling a demand for novelties. The demand exists and is huge. People with $$$ get irrelevant bonus stuff that makes them happy, Blizzard profits which makes its stake/shareholders happy and simultaneously in no way is their integrity or quality design philosophies compromised. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Twitter 
