/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>11671228
BC was apex (Kaza runs, flying!!)
Totlk was ok, then shit, then ok, then Cata
and cata was just ehhh, more of the same, can you please make WC4 yet?

1.0 Vanilla was terribly though, late vanilla was ok, but if anyone tells you vanilla without patches was any good, then they are just wrong, or mentally ill

>>11671270
>Dont you guys have phones?
that wasnt the issue, the issue was that they announced a mobile game to their most zealous diehard PC consumers

they got everyone's hopes up then served a big shit sandwich, and people are pissed

a mobile game does not need its own week long convention at a massive convention center, especially after baiting all the PC nerds with a "major" new games to announce, which ended up being a mobile game, a patch for an existing game, and a new character to play as on a game thats 2 years old now

Blizz's decision on its own wasnt a bad one, in fact from a financial standpoint its amazing they didnt do this years ago
the problem was how they delivered the message, which cause outrage instead of hype (which has just hit the outrage-amplifier known as social media, blowing arguments for and against it out of proportion)

>>11671354
>Tiawan isnt the same thing as china (except on paper), and thats just lazy moving the goalposts anyways

diablo mobile will probably make bank, and dip after their show is probably way out of proportion (unless their is some underlying problem at the company that I'm missing), but it was a very contemptuous way to announce their product

and if blizzard didnt realize that, that may just highlight how their userbase is changing (out with the old, in with the new)

not necessarily a problem for the business, especially long term
but blizzard is not a victim of a bunch of hateful otakus

>>11671606
ah, it was a motly fool article I just read, so i took their advice with a truckload of salt