backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 46 comment(s) - last by Akazar.. on Feb 4 at 10:48 AM

Blizzard's next game, "StarCraft II," will feature a rich story mode
World of Warcraft brings in billions for games maker

It’s no secret that the World of Warcraft is one of the biggest cash cows in today’s games industry – a point further punctuated by the $1.2 billion in revenue raked in by Blizzard Entertainment in 2007.

Blizzard Entertainment’s parent company, Vivendi Games, brought in a total of $1.5 billion, which puts into perspective the contributions that World of Warcraft brings to the publisher.

World of Warcraft shows no sign of slowing down. Blizzard experienced 58 percent higher revenues in 2007 over 2006 and recently announced that its massively multiplayer online role-playing game has amassed more than 10 million subscribers worldwide.

"It's very gratifying to see gamers around the world continuing to show such enthusiasm and support for World of Warcraft," said Mike Morhaime, CEO and cofounder of Blizzard Entertainment. "We're always pleased to welcome new players to the game, and we're looking forward to sharing the next major content update with the entire community in the months ahead."

Blizzard’s massive revenue will no longer be just a part of Vivendi Games for 2008, however, as the Vivendi merged with Activision to form Activision Blizzard – creating potentially the world's largest, most profitable games company.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Starcraft II Image
By FITCamaro on 1/31/2008 12:12:31 PM , Rating: 1
Is it going to be a 3rd person game? Or is that just a screenshot from what will be a cutscene?




RE: Starcraft II Image
By geddarkstorm on 1/31/2008 12:14:36 PM , Rating: 5
It's totally going to be a point and click adventure game.


RE: Starcraft II Image
By noxipoo on 1/31/2008 12:21:27 PM , Rating: 1
it's only available on the PS3 as well. you are on your own for the KB and mouse as the controller doesn't work.


RE: Starcraft II Image
By TerranMagistrate on 1/31/2008 12:25:21 PM , Rating: 2
I'm quite sure there has been a PS3 version announced.


RE: Starcraft II Image
By TerranMagistrate on 1/31/2008 12:25:50 PM , Rating: 2
HASN'T been, I mean.


RE: Starcraft II Image
By qwertyz on 1/31/2008 7:17:32 PM , Rating: 1
Could someone can explain to me what's all the fuss about World of Warcraft ?


RE: Starcraft II Image
By grath on 1/31/2008 10:46:16 PM , Rating: 5
I dont know if you mean WoW specifically or are using WoW because its the most prominent example of its genre, so Ill risk erring on the side of over-explaining. Disclaimer, I dont play WoW but I have played several other MMOGs and have a passing familiarity with the industry. I dont know if this makes me more or less objective about WoW, well see...

First you have to understand the appeal of Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games (MMORPG or MMOG) in general. Theyre basically an evolution of chat rooms, which have always been popular for a variety of reasons, but instead of people being just nicknames who type to each other, your presence is manifested by an animated character in a large simulated environment in which you can interact with other players characters for the purpose of accomplishing various tasks associated with the theme of the game and improving your characters abilities. The same kind of addictive detachment from reality that occurs in a simple chat room is now far more immersive, to the point that you can completely withdraw into the game and end up playing 16+ hours a day.

The games are each themed differently of course, either basing the theme off of an existing franchise that has its own setting and lore to draw from, or creating its own original theme for the game. The early MMOGs were generally medieval fantasy themed, as the game mechanics are derived from long established pen-and-paper role playing systems like Dungeons and Dragons. Two of the more popular early MMOGs, Ultima Online and Everquest, still have people playing at this very moment, 10 years after Ultima Online was released. More recently, science fiction themed games have come out such as Eve Online and Star Wars Galaxies, as well as modern and urban settings, such as City of Heroes and The Matrix Online.

The selection of a popular established theme is no guarantee the game will be highly successful. Many factors contribute to ultimate popularity of the game. Star Wars Galaxies was extremely popular for a time but its creative, technical, and managerial problems led to several mass exoduses of the player base, and the game as it exists today is a mere shadow of its former self. The Matrix Online never became very popular in the first place, despite The Matrix theme being seemingly perfect for an MMORPG. In general, the fantasy/medieval themed games seem to have a broader appeal and tend to be more popular, but not always, an example being Dungeons and Dragons Online, which was not well received desipte D&D being the "big daddy" of the role playing genre.

So the "fuss" about World of Warcraft is that among the plethora of different MMORPGs, it managed to become so successful as to be an order of magnitude more popular than its competition. One million subscribers used to be the big milestone for a game to hit, and now WoW says they have 10 million. Everquest used to be the typical example of an MMORPG that people would think of first, and now its WoW, to the point that its become a household name and a microcosm of the whole MMOG industry. The social and economic issues that have always been associated with this kind of game are amplified 10 fold in WoW. The ugly side of these issues are increasingly being noticed by the general public and media, people losing jobs or not going to school because they play so much, using drugs to be able to play longer, asian sweatshops that earn in game currency to sell for real world currency... so being by far the most popular MMOG, WoW is both the posterboy and lightning rod for the industry.

Not being a WoW player myself I cant speak to the actual gameplay, but from what Ive seen it had a number of factors that were on its side and led to its success. Its medieval fantasy theme put it in already the most popular MMOG genre. The setting was built from an existing franchise whos fanbase was already adapted to multiplayer video games from the Warcraft real-time strategy games. This seems to have worked far better in generating the player base than other games which are based on a film franchise, as many fans of the movies arent gamers. WoW seems to have been released at an optimal time in terms of technology, as many people had high-speed internet connections, and powerful enough computers and graphics cards were becoming more common. It also came out at a time when existing MMOG players had been playing their game of choice for a few years and were ready to get into a new game.

Other factors determine how strong the player base remains over time, its growth and turnover rate, how long it takes before you run out of "stuff to do, the quantity and quality of game expansions, customer service and technical support. Again, not playing WoW myself I cant speak to specifics, but from what I hear it seems like they do a decent job of keeping their player base happy enough and occupied with "end game content," which is stuff to do after your character reaches the point that its abilities cannot be improved through typical gameplay. This is an issue that leads to many people stopping to play a game, with frequent claims of "lack of endgame content." WoW seems to have plenty of this content, and thats likely a big factor in keeping the player base so large. Its marketing is also somewhat unusual and extremely aggressive for the MMOG industry with its celebrity TV commercials.

Er... now what was your question again?


RE: Starcraft II Image
By jtemplin on 1/31/2008 11:47:23 PM , Rating: 2
That was an excellent description of an MMO. You should try to get that published!


RE: Starcraft II Image
By qwertyz on 2/1/08, Rating: 0
RE: Starcraft II Image
By qwertyz on 2/1/2008 4:19:06 AM , Rating: 1
Anyway they should wake up to reality and realize that WoW is just a game.


RE: Starcraft II Image
By togaman5000 on 2/1/2008 8:01:26 AM , Rating: 2
Don't stereotype all WoW players- I thoroughly enjoy playing, despite being considered a 'casual' player. Just because they play the game doesn't mean they are the die-hard, 5 hours a day seven days a week player like so many visualize them to be.

Many players have families, real jobs, or are just kids playing games. Is playing WoW any different than playing Halo? Of the 10 million, I'd say less than 1 million spend more than a few hours a week on the game. With such a broad base of players, there will always be some whack jobs- just don't think they're the norm.


RE: Starcraft II Image
By Wagnbat on 1/31/2008 6:34:40 PM , Rating: 1
Don't you mean a point and click Real Time Strategy (RTS) game?


RE: Starcraft II Image
By kiwik on 2/1/2008 12:28:25 AM , Rating: 2
Of course not.


RE: Starcraft II Image
By JediSmurf on 1/31/2008 12:22:07 PM , Rating: 3
That looks similar to a campaign briefing screen from SC1 for terrans.


RE: Starcraft II Image
By TerranMagistrate on 1/31/2008 12:27:16 PM , Rating: 3
Starcraft II is a Real Time Strategy title. It is going to be incredible.


RE: Starcraft II Image
By StevoLincolnite on 1/31/2008 12:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
And I cream myself every time I hear it, and wait in anticipation every time I log into Battle.net, 10 years on and the game still has me sucked into the Multi-Player :) Best 89 bucks I ever spent! (And I know my CD Key off by heart, if thats any contribution to how much of a fan I am).

I just hope they don't botch the game up, The Team that made StarCraft are no longer at Blizzard. (But then again, It's Blizzard they always make rock-solid games)

It's also nice to hear Activision is doing well, a few years ago I thought they were going to go down the drain as a company.


RE: Starcraft II Image
By MADAOO7 on 1/31/2008 1:08:01 PM , Rating: 2
Amen to the creaming. How in the world did you spend $89 on a game that cost around $50?


RE: Starcraft II Image
By aharris on 1/31/2008 1:45:54 PM , Rating: 2
I assume he purchased the Battle Chest.


RE: Starcraft II Image
By StevoLincolnite on 1/31/2008 9:51:24 PM , Rating: 2
No this was StarCraft without the Expansion or the Battle chest, I bought it on release day in Australia where it is normally fairly expensive.
Now you can pick up the game discs for 10 bucks each, but then I would have missed out on years of classic gaming :)


RE: Starcraft II Image
By FITCamaro on 1/31/2008 3:08:21 PM , Rating: 5
I prefer women but if video games get you off, that's your preference. Optical discs probably start to chafe eventually.


RE: Starcraft II Image
By StevoLincolnite on 1/31/2008 9:52:34 PM , Rating: 4
Each to they're own, I personally don't like women.


RE: Starcraft II Image
By borismkv on 2/4/2008 1:52:21 AM , Rating: 2
I don't like women...just the package they come in :D


RE: Starcraft II Image
By FITCamaro on 1/31/2008 3:04:10 PM , Rating: 2
Thats what I thought just the image confused me.


Blizzard Entertainment
By TerranMagistrate on 1/31/2008 12:36:08 PM , Rating: 5
Created and creates some of the very best PC games ever. In my opinion, the best.

I'm not into WoW but Starcraft, to this day, is a truly awesome game. After more than a decade of being out, SC is still hugely popular on Battle.net and especially in S.Korea.

I'm certain that SC2 will also be just as great. 2009-2010 is probably around the time SC2 will be released since Blizzard always takes their time to make sure their games are perfect or very near it. I can hardly wait.




RE: Blizzard Entertainment
By jbzx86 on 1/31/2008 12:44:19 PM , Rating: 2
2008 in time for Holiday season. They have been working on it for quite some time.

I remember reading the PC Gamer preview on WoW back in like... 2002? The game looked completely different from what it is now, and it was released in 2005. They had a perfectly playable version in 2002 as well. It took them 3 years to get the game to what it was upon release. Keep in mind that was an MMORPG, so I think SC2 is on track for 2008 holiday release.


RE: Blizzard Entertainment
By TerranMagistrate on 1/31/2008 1:15:03 PM , Rating: 2
Well, considering all the balancing work that needs to be done between the 3 races especially with all the new awesome units introduced, it's going to be a while. The videos released were of the pre-alpha build if I remember correctly.

Not to mention Blizzard has to make sure that it is perfect for the intensely competitive S.Korean market. So I'm going to stand by my '09-'10 prediction since that is probably what it will take to bring SC2 to RTS perfection.


RE: Blizzard Entertainment
By Jetster on 1/31/2008 12:55:56 PM , Rating: 2
well, BlizzEn just showed all the other game companies that pc games can be just as profitable if not more so as consoles. and they all can learn from the success, they don't need the most fun, most innovative, or most cutting-edge graphic, but they do need good art directions, rich environment, and HELL LOT of TIME developing it to create as smooth experience to players as possible, instead of keep pumping out beta projects that I want to bang my head on.


RE: Blizzard Entertainment
By feelingshorter on 1/31/2008 10:10:52 PM , Rating: 2
Funny thing is...with all that money, you'd think they'd be able to kick SC2 out the door earlier.


WoW
By stburke on 1/31/2008 12:13:39 PM , Rating: 2
No, really. Wow.




RE: WoW
By therealnickdanger on 1/31/2008 12:43:24 PM , Rating: 4
I was going to... but didn't. :P

I'm actually proud to say that I have never once played WoW. I do fear that I might actually love WoW, though, and then be one of those guys that loses his job over it.


RE: WoW
By TITAN1080 on 1/31/08, Rating: 0
RE: WoW
By mmntech on 1/31/2008 2:46:43 PM , Rating: 2
I'm a proud owner of WoW. Came with my South Park Season 10 DVD set. Never even took the disc out to the package. Call me cheap but I just don't like the idea of having to pay a monthly fee to keep playing the game. It obviously works for Blizzard so more power to them. They make good games. The original Warcrafts were fun RTS games.


RE: WoW
By TITAN1080 on 2/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: WoW
By OPR8R on 1/31/2008 3:00:20 PM , Rating: 5
WoW is a shining example of what a game doesn't have to be in order to be successful. WoW's graphics look like they're DX8 from 2003 and the gameplay/combat almost looks silly, yet millions play for hours and hours every week. I admit though, I've never played it once.

Anyway, game designers should take this as a hint. Quit wasting your time and money coding graphics-envelope-pushing games that require 50% of the PC gamer base to make expensive upgrades. Most gamers will either switch to consoles or not buy and/or pirate your games. Sell us games that we can all play and have fun with and we will buy and play them.


Is that a current screenshot?
By BansheeX on 1/31/2008 12:52:46 PM , Rating: 3
I'm sure this game will be fun and all, but... just goes to show you one of the downfalls of the PC model of gaming. No matter how good current graphics cards are, most of its games are intentionally built years behind in order to reach the most possible users and get the most possible sales. Then it creates a catch-22, as if everyone did that, there would be no incentive to upgrade. Developers have to create the incentive, but they want sales at the same time. Crysis created an incentive, but its sales sucked.




RE: Is that a current screenshot?
By Ratinator on 1/31/2008 1:54:49 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm...you are knocking the PC model? Consoles are built using pretty much the same technology as the PC. The problem is that once the console is ready for release the hardware is at least a year old meaning that all games need to be built on year old technology. To you it may seem current because the hardware in a specific console never changes. On top of that usually within a year of release of a console, PC Game Graphics out perform the console and have games built for it to back it up meaning that for the next 5-6 years of the life of the console, it will consistently be behind the graphics on a PC. To say that the PC model builds games that are a couple years behind is completely false. The PC gives the flexibility of changing graphic settings to work better on older hardware, but at full settings usually meet the hardware of the day.

Sorry, but you can keep your console.

On a side note: Starcraft II is going to be one of the biggest releases of the year if not the decade. The original Starcraft is still one of the best real time strategies ever made. Blizzard understands this and will be putting more hard work into this release than any other game so as not to dissappoint.


RE: Is that a current screenshot?
By BansheeX on 2/1/2008 2:52:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ummm...you are knocking the PC model? Consoles are built using pretty much the same technology as the PC.


Sort of, for video, although PPC processors and the cell aren't really like the x86 cpus a PC uses at all. They're much more specialized.

quote:
The problem is that once the console is ready for release the hardware is at least a year old meaning that all games need to be built on year old technology. To you it may seem current because the hardware in a specific console never changes.


Here's where you're missing the point. In terms of the graphics API and physics, you're right. But you're also skewing it on a technical basis rather than taking into account what I was saying before about most games many years down the road, like this one, still not taking advantage of the latest API tricks. Not only that, MS is tying you to their OS updates now, so rather than just upgrading your video card into DX10 compliance, now you have to buy Vista as well. But in a seven-year proprietary hardware model, where everyone in that time has the same capabilities, you have the amazing ability to optimize for one type of hardware and one type of media format. The question of how much you're going to sacrifice in graphical prowess to get more sales never arises and interferes to create Duke Nukem Forever scenarios. You treat graphics as an era rather than something which needs to change every half year. Look at all these tools already talking about DX10.1. And look at how much smoother and faster the media format transitions have been on this proprietary model. CD to DVD was a nightmare on the PC.

quote:
The PC gives the flexibility of changing graphic settings to work better on older hardware, but at full settings usually meet the hardware of the day.


So StarCraft II is DX10, then, and is capable of looking similar to a game like Crysis which came out well before it? I guess I don't believe you from that screenshot that full settings are going to do much.

The console has made some important strides this time around that have eliminated some of the PC's long-held advantages: quality netplay, digital video output, HD resolutions, hard drives, web surfing and media functions, better mouse/keyboard support, autopatching. And when you consider that cheating is nearly impossible on consoles, that things like pirating isn't as big of a problem and there are no starforce issues, and many genres like fighting games never show up on the PC for lack of a well-adopted gamepad standard, then you can see how PCs have been losing ground significantly for gaming and will continue to do so. If Sony were to emphasize the mouse/keyboard more and include one with every unit, it would bring RTS PC exclusives like this to it and it would do it better than the PC could.


RE: Is that a current screenshot?
By rcc on 2/1/2008 2:54:35 PM , Rating: 2
That's all correct. Consoles are a bit like the Macs of the gaming world. You won't have the latest bells and whistles, but it works with less hassles, and flexibility.

: )


RE: Is that a current screenshot?
By Akazar on 2/4/2008 10:48:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
then you can see how PCs have been losing ground significantly for gaming and will continue to do so.


How can you say that when the article above strictly contradicts it. Activision Blizzard is the most profitable gaming company in the world and their revenues come mostly from pc games.

PC gaming is still the most profitable market there is. The focus has changed though. Mostly to mmo's and games that arent's subscription based but are expansion based (sims2, morrowind(oblivion), guild wars).

The real fact is more and more people are playing games. Either on the pc or on the console. The market share is continually growing. PC gaming will never die.


Does it remind you of HL1?
By Scrogneugneu on 1/31/2008 8:08:10 PM , Rating: 3
When I look at the SC2 picture, I can't help but think at Half-Life 1. The atmosphere is very similar to me...

Am I the only one on this?




RE: Does it remind you of HL1?
By kiwik on 2/1/2008 12:31:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Am I the only one on this?

Yes.


Cash Cow, and people's stupidity
By ICE1966 on 1/31/2008 8:45:37 PM , Rating: 1
I really enjoyed playing the original Starcraft alot, but I did not like WOW. I think its crazy that so many people have fallen into the WOW addiction. I have friends who spend almost all of thier time from work playing WOW. They spend no time with thier family, and have even missed work to play in raids. It seems that there is some kind of unnatural desire to play this game or, there are just that many mindless people willing to sacrafic most everything to play this game. I think it is crazy to pay someone to play a game such as this online. I know that Blizzard runs all these servers, and updates the game but I can tell you that it does not cost $90 - $100 million dollars a month to do this. to me they cannot justify making this amount of money for doing nothing more than incremental updates and running some servers. it would seem that these people are the "microsft" of gaming. Now, activision has merged with them, and bet that in the future games like COD4 will cost us to play online. that will be the day that I cease to play games by these people.

ICE




Diablo 2 (and Xpac)
By Joz on 1/31/08, Rating: 0
A drop in the bucket
By othercents on 1/31/08, Rating: -1
RE: A drop in the bucket
By kristof007 on 1/31/2008 1:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
Decreasing their monthly would be nice but its one of those things that would be like a last attempt to keep players (if they somehow decided they didn't like the game anymore). Unfortunately until there is a sign of slowing down in the increase of players, it just does not make any sense for them to decrease their monthly rates.


RE: A drop in the bucket
By spookynutz on 1/31/2008 6:02:43 PM , Rating: 1
I think you have that backwards. Vivendi games is probably the most profitable portion of their business. You're failing to consider Vivendi's overall operating expenses vs. that of their games division. They may have pulled in 40 billion in revenue, but if I recall, only 4 billion of that was actually net profit. Then you have Blizzard, by itself, projecting over half a billion in net profit for 2007. If I was the CEO of Vivendi, looking at those numbers, I'd sooner cut my own balls off then lose a revenue stram like that. Now that Vivendi Games has merged with Activison, the publisher behind the best selling game of 2007, I would expect the majority of Vivendi's profit to come from their games division in the near future.


"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki