Have they? If anything, I think they have improved. It might not please everyone (I miss the old WoW), but it seems to me that Blizzard is making informed game design decisions based on what the users want. I wouldn't surprised me to hear they invested a lot in big data analytics.

Their big screw-up is perhaps the Diablo III auction house. The idea is good, but it has spiraled out of control. The auction house is now the only viable way to acquire gear. Playing only serves to rack money, but reselling is as good a way to make money. Gear serves to play, to rack more money, to buy better gear. The auction house is now the game. You can do very well at the game without ever playing the "real" game. Not to mention that shelling a few euros on the real money auction house will save tens of hours of farming, and real money continues to appreciate wrt in-game currency.

They've grown to include wider appeal and be more profitable.

Since the merger, Blizzard has aggressively moved towards in-game real money transactions including one high profile fuckup where they irreparably ruined the economy of an entire game, ruining the game itself for many players (especially their older and more devoted fans).

They've scrapped their major next MMO, pushing it back and folding much of the staff into other projects while this one goes back to the drawing board.

They predictably released StarCraft 1.5, the graphics update, but StarCraft is a known commodity and they didn't have the leeway to make substantial changes without massively disrupting the playerbase.

I can't find a single product of theirs that screams character and love and devotion to video games like their classics do, but every single product does appear to be a financially calculated move to extract as much money as possible from gamers.

From this long time (and no longer) Blizzard fan, modern Blizzard looks more like Zynga than the company they once were. More interested in ARPU than making wonderful games.

Speaking of love of and devotion to games, if you want to see what the original Diablo team has done lately take a look at Torchlight II - it still has that something that D3 is missing and D1/2 had.

Blatant self promotion, but have you tried Path of Exile?

I enjoyed TL2 and Path of Exile! Both were great games that did the ARPG genre that Blizzard pioneered (and then abandoned) very proud.

I also enjoyed Guild Wars 2 -- the latest game by a team of ex-Blizzard staff.

I have to agree with you, I've played every single Blizzard game ever made, and SC2 is just plain beautiful. The campaign cinematics were amazing...

Hardcore D3 has (or at least had) much better economics, due to:

* no RMAH (and as such, all the good items are on sell for gold)

* and huge moneysink in the form of dying characters (as such, less gold inflation)

Also, when you play HC, leveling up your new character is so much less painful with AH. Besides, I'd just by something @ d2jsp.

I never played HC, is the regular auction house separate from non-HC though?

Yes, neither gold nor loot can cross the carebear/hardcore threshold.

Depends on your definition of "user". Diablo III was a huge let down to most of us who are fans of DII. It's not just the AH either; online always, crap gear, crap story, dumbed down skills, pay-to-win RMAH, and constant nerfs of a game that is not meant to be an esport. Bleh.

Heart of the Swarm was also inferior.

In what sense? I don't play the single player, but I think Heart of the Swarm dramatically improved the multiplayer.

I'm the other way around: I bought it for the singleplayer campaign. It was terrible: short, half-assed, and boring. Huge contrast to the WoL campaign.

SC2 wasn't really designed for the single player campaign. Neither was brood war, Warcraft 1, 2, or 3. This genre of games has always been about the multiplayer aspect. The campaigns are nice add ons but not the core of the games.

I think you may be a tad misinformed. Even though the multiplayer aspect is very popular, Blizzard as a company has been known for really caring about the underlying story in both franchises. So no, the campaigns - which are the main tool used to advance the stories - are not supposed to be "nice add-ons."

Back before Warcraft 3, multiplayer usually meant LAN. Neglecting the single player campaign would have been just stupid.

Lots of fans disagree!

Why do you say so? Sales are good, games are good, korean cybersport is finally transitioning to SC2, diablo is fine, wow is probably holding record for the most living / profitable mmo.

While I think there is plenty of doom and gloom that isn't entirely true, I think the picture you've painted is still a bit rosy.

> korean cybersport is finally transitioning to SC2

Yes and no. Proleague finally switched from Brood War and KeSPA players are doing excellent in the WCS leagues, esports in Korea are way down from where they've been, with MBCGame dead. Even then, almost everyone is playing LoL.

In fact, in PC Bangs, Starcraft 1 is STILL more popular than Starcraft 2.

> diablo is fine

Again, yes and no. It sold well, and the initial sale of a Blizzard title is where almost all its revenue comes from. But many, many of the most hardcore fans were disappointed, and most won't buy the next Diablo property 'sight-unseen' like the last one.

> wow is probably holding record for the most living / profitable mmo

True, WoW has been the most profitable MMO ever. But their numbers have declined over the last few years, and every attempt they've had to "give it the paddles" and reignite growth hasn't been too successful.

Almost all my friends who played WoW call it a shadow of the game that it was, citing the HUGE differences in skillsets and builds, how easy it is to get rewards, etc.

---

All that said, SC2 was a HUGE part of eSports rising worldwide, and still sports a pretty healthy audience. And one has to expect their next MMO will be spectacular, if they can ever abandon WoW.

> Almost all my friends who played WoW call it a shadow of the game that it was, citing the HUGE differences in skillsets and builds, how easy it is to get rewards, etc.

Speaking here as someone who has played WoW since vanilla, that's sort of a self-selecting sample. Your friends who used to play WoW are people who selected into enjoying it when it was a (by modern standards) relatively hardcore game. It makes sense that they might be turned off by its new "everyone can see all the content!" approach.

It wouldn't surprise me if their current subscription "woes" (quotation marks because they're still the biggest MMO around) stem from the more-casual userbase running through, seeing everything, and not having any really reason to stick around, instead canceling their subscription until the next big content drop.

Honestly dude, except for young children, mmos have passed their prime, anyone whos been playing mmos for 15+ years has been there and done that, I don't mean that in an elitist sense, I mean that except for skin/model changes, mmos are really very cookie-cutter, it was really exciting to see it for the first couple of times, just as doom, half-life, and any other shooters were, but it is a real weakness when you're playing the same mechanics for years. Yes, I can use my imagination, but I am aware of the limits of technology and I'd like to do more than play the same time sinks over and over.

> except for young children

Am curious why you put that qualifier in. Is it just that you think people have to play MMOs to become bored of them?

I meant it as anyone who has been playing them for years has been there and done that, the thrill of them is in big part due to their novelty, there's a lot to explore if you've never played any mmo before, there's a lot less when you start to realize there all just reskinned versions of the same idea. MMOs are some of the more basic games in existence, the need to advance, that's my point.

But to your point about the most profitable mmo, Blizzard is leaking subscribers in the hundreds of thousands recently. The subscription model is becoming obsolete. WoW is an awesome game but times are changing.

> "Blizzard is leaking subscribers in the hundreds of thousands recently"

Another few years of that and they'll merely be ... well, still the largest subscription MMO ever...

And more to the point, WoW is still going to be the genre definer for the next five years. That's not exceptional on Blizzard's part, though: winning an overwhelming amount of market share lets you coast. It doesn't mean the merger didn't have significant negative effects. (Yay double negatives. ):

Well, yes. But the game came out in 2004 and for the majority of its history its growth was astronomical. It's only recently that subscription numbers have been declining at a steady rate. And even then, the game still has years left before it becomes obsolete. You can see that this is Blizzard's thinking as well, since they recently scrapped Project Titan (their new upcoming MMO) and started over.

Show me one F2P MMO that has more active players than WoW and I'd agree with you. Subscription isn't dying at all. WoW is just old. If anything, with all the failed F2P games dying I'd say it is the opposite.

Agreed; there's a natural lifetime to games. WoW is rolling through its middle age now and its health is starting to get a bit "off".

However, WoW simply is more playable than its competitors. I played a few of them, and WoW was still better. The next MMO to carefully build itself to be super playable will be quite a hit, I think. Note - when WoW was released, mobile wasn't here. If most casual gamers have moved to Facebook/mobile instead and won't get a desktop to play their MMO, the market will have shifted such that there won't be another WoW.

Probably? Oh it passed that years ago. WoW is 100% cash cow at this point.