One thing I thought about project hydra is what IF Blizzard decided to combine all three current franchises into a game? They could please all the fans at once.
I don't just mean one big MMO. I mean combine the three franchises and three genres. Part MMO, part FPS, and part RTS. Start with a base MMO, but put in RTS and FPS as instances. I don't think thats too far fetched. Look at Warcraft III. People make custom maps for it all the time that try to make it an RPG even though its an RTS. Ever play the WoW Warcraft III maps?
Anyhow when I think of hydra, I think a beast with many heads. A game like what I've described is a hydra in essence.
I, personally, do not think Blizzard needs to spend any money on publicity. It is already doing a fantastic job with the weeklong teasers on their website. And its become a viral hit, as its been seen on digg.com's front page several times. Even major gaming websites are commenting on what the mystery game could be. With this, I highly doubt that Blizzard will get a significant amount of new consumers with that strategy.
I, personally, do not think Blizzard needs to spend any money on publicity. It is already doing a fantastic job...With this, I highly doubt that...
We are saying that what all "this" is, is project Hydra. The coordination of all major franchises is project Hydra. The efforts of which, is a project in itself; aptly named Hydra.
Nobody ever said anything about them spending money frivolously. Their artists and developers are compensated for the work requested of them as it is. I'm sure this campaign has hardly cost them at all.
I don't have a problem with calling the coordination of all the franchises project Hydra. I just have a problem with the method you suggested.
What method did we suggest? All we proposed is that this whole ordeal is project Hydra. The rest, again, was merely speculation based on concrete evidence.
The method of marketing all three releases within months of each other. And might I ask what concrete evidence? Blizzard has not announced release dates for any of the titles.
The method of marketing all three releases within months of each other. And might I ask what concrete evidence? Blizzard has not announced release dates for any of the titles.
Concrete evidence in support of the new game being Diablo III. Everything from Harbinger (The only character ever labeled as such in any Blizzard game is Diablo) to countless other threads on this forum in support of Diablo III.
Once again, I'll explain that the intertwined, semi-simultanious, release date theory was speculation based on release dates at www.bestbuy.com. If you find those dates to be debatable, fine. On what grounds? Do you have proof Best Buy has been wrong in the past? Is there any reason they would put random dates on their site only to retract them, thus creating redundant work?
Rest assured that Blizzard can, at any moment, request those dates be taken down if they disagree with them. Though I do not find the dates to be exactly accurate being that Blizzard can change them, the important thing to note is the closeness of the dates.
During my colleague and I's conversation we thought it would be great to hear them say "Surprise! We've been working on all three titles all along! Enjoy them!" We then inquired if there had been mention of current release dates for WoTLK and/or SC2 and we found, at the very least, a semblance supporting the theory.
Edit: As I stated earlier, I don't find the dates to be concrete data, just the closeness of them:
Quote from "psyfect" »
It had everything to do with the announcements and the resulting time frame for release was merely speculation based on empirical knowledge.
no release dates are absolute this early in the race, if any are announced they are only goals set by the company, they can change release dates at will
no release dates are absolute this early in the race, if any are announced they are only goals set by the company, they can change release dates at will
That is our point. The dates themselves may not be accurate, as stated in my previous post. The importance is the closeness of the dates. They appear to be in an attempt to achieve something.
That would be a horrible marketing strategy. What is Blizzard hoping to get with releasing all three games close to one another. I personally am waiting for both SC2 and D3, so if they release D3 at the same time as SC2/WotLK, people would have a hard time choosing which game to buy, because most people don't have enough money to drop $100 to $150 on two or three of the games. Also, if they were to buy all three games, they can't play all of them at once. Therefore, most people will just buy one game, and wait until they beat that game and buy the second game that they want. This will result in lower sales and revenues at the beginning of the release, and by the time gamers are ready to buy the second game, they'll possibly find better deals than retail, yeilding in less revenue for Blizzard. It is NOT advisable to release all three games at the same time.
Plus, where the heck did you get those street dates from? Blizzard hasn't announced a beta yet, and they've been saying the games will be out when they are ready. BUT, if those dates are correct, which i DOUBT, but SC2 and WotLK cater to different marketing segments. One is an RTS while the other one will be picked up by loyal WoW fans. Releasing those two near each other, theoretically, should not have that much impact on sales. BUT, this is BLIZZARD. A major gaming company. With releases like SC2, a highly anticipated game, WITH WotLK, an expansion pack to one of the most played games, the sales of the games will eat each other up. And that's without D3. If D3 was in the mix, it would take away from WotLK's sales as they're both catering to MMORPG players. AND, D3 has been really anticipated. EVEN lower revenues for Blizzard.
Basically. That marketing strategy = FAIL.
Problems with your theory here:
1) Diablo has not been officially announced to be the new MMO.
2) Diablo has completely different core gameplay elements- specifically being hack n' slash, as opposed to WoW's turn-based/real-time battle system (basically the same system as that of FFXII.)
3) Diablo caters to a completely different taste- the gothic, dark, deep-thinking kind, whereas WoW is a virtual cartoon of LotR (read all of the extra stuff besides the three books by Tolkien and you'll be amazed to find that he invented the "Dark Elves" and such.)
4) If they are losing money from WoW to Diablo (assuming it's a p2p MMO), then they would still be getting the money, just through another game.
1) Diablo has not been officially announced to be the new MMO.
2) Diablo has completely different core gameplay elements- specifically being hack n' slash, as opposed to WoW's turn-based/real-time battle system (basically the same system as that of FFXII.)
3) Diablo caters to a completely different taste- the gothic, dark, deep-thinking kind, whereas WoW is a virtual cartoon of LotR (read all of the extra stuff besides the three books by Tolkien and you'll be amazed to find that he invented the "Dark Elves" and such.)
4) If they are losing money from WoW to Diablo (assuming it's a p2p MMO), then they would still be getting the money, just through another game.
1) That is true, I am just responding to the OP because he also assumed D3 was going to be released
2&3) See my second long post. I think I address the fact that whether or not they are different genres, coming from Blizzard and having a long history will make their markets conflict.
4) If they were to market the games separately, they would maximize profits because the longer the games are out but not bought, they lose money. If they released each game separately and waited for the hype to die out, optimal sales would happen.
If they released each game separately and waited for the hype to die out, optimal sales would happen.
I think this mode of thinking is what's preventing you from accepting the theory. That is conventional thinking. Blizzard has nothing to lose and everything to gain by going this new route. As stated earlier by someone else; there are people who will buy one game or the other and others still may buy them all; regardless of when they're released.
For instance. I will never buy WoTLK. I don't like WoW. This means Blizzard will not get my money until they release SC2 or Diablo III. Do you think they want to wait to get my money until 2010 because there may be other players whom want both games, but can't afford the second until 2010?
Most people get paid once every two weeks. Some once every week. A month in between release dates would be sufficeint. Heck, releasing them all same day would be fine.
I guess I can't be convinced that this is a bad marketing strategy. Why prevent the people whom can buy three games from getting them because one person may need two months to accumulate income for a second purchase?
People are going to buy the game if they're going to by the game. Period. Very few will not buy Diablo III because they dedicate themselves to finishing SC2 first or can't handle owning and playing more than one game at a time. And if they are that type of person, guess what? They would have bought Diablo III if it were released instead anyways, so you may as well release it for those who will.
For those who can play multiple games, guess what, chances are now that; at any given moment, the game they are playing is a Blizzard game. Talk about a household name!
Edit: It's like you're telling me if someone offered you to be the owner of every game ever made you'd decline or offer each game for sale one at a time, yearly. Why not cater to everyones individual preferences?
Blizzard has plenty to lose. If they choose to release each game, there will be a certain amount that do not sell, because not everybody can afford to pay for all of the games they want. Therefore, there will be an overstock of games. Blizzard first must pay for the creation of the game, packaging, shipping, etc. Granted, stores that buy the game to sell will pay for most of the costs. However, say for instance, during the first week, a certain amount does not sell, due to the fact that not everybody can afford to buy all of the games they want. Therefore, stores will not order more copies because they already have stock. Thus, Blizzard loses sales due to an overstock of copies. Basically, the money that could be investing earning interest is sitting in store shelves losing money.
People will not wanting to pay for something they are not going to use right away. Do you buy a car when you are 10 because you will use it later, but you're taking the bus to school right now?
People will not wanting to pay for something they are not going to use right away. Do you buy a car when you are 10 because you will use it later, but you're taking the bus to school right now?
Apples and oranges. Those cars provide the same functionality. We're talking about completely different experiences here (WoW is not SC2). Also, You're not looking at this from a market standpoint. Allow to iterate as succinctly as possible with the following question: "Whom better to be your competitor than yourself?"
I wouldn't be surprised if many people purchased Titan Quest due to the absence of Diablo III. Had Diablo III been released, Titan Quest may have gone relatively unnoticed. Blizzard controls these markets. Hack and slash is theirs and theirs alone. They may see the revenue that was generated from Titan Quest as loss of their own potential sales. Titan Quest wasn't established well enough yet to guarantee it's market share like Diablo III would have.
Do you really believe that if an alternative game company had the rights to WoW and SC2 that Blizzard would push back the release of Diablo III in the event the other company announced a similar release date? Additionally, you could always compensate for multiple releases based on sales. Maybe instead of 10 million copies you ship 8 million. Though I feel the amount shipped should coincide with the amount expected regardless of self inflicted competition.
Keep in mind that these are differetly themed games. Not all fps's. In that case, a problem may arise. But then, that'd be like saying 'we're going to release Diablo III, IV, and V all at once.'
Edit: Even in your overstock theory, those games would eventually be sold to those who couldn't originally afford it. People tend to make enough money to spend it on entertainment periodically.
I am just looking from the standpoint of the majority of people who will buy the games. There will be people, like you stated, that will be able and willing to buy more than one title. However, the majority of people will only buy one game. You for instance, might buy more than one title. However, 70% of the gaming population will only buy one. If this happens, Blizzard will be losing money due to an overstock. As for the statement about these overstocks will eventually be sold out, that is true. However, how long will this process take, and is this the best way to maximize profits? The best way to maximize profits is to sell what you expect as you stated. But with three titles being released at one time, how do you calculate that? As no other company has done so before, you don't have data to research. Will there be a substantial number of consumers who will opt to buy all three titles, or will there be significantly less? It would be hard to calculate such a risky move, as Blizzard could find themselves in a shortage situation or on the opposite end.
As for people who will buy other games due to the delay of the Blizzard titles, Blizzard has already taken an aggressive stance towards that with their advertising strategy, i.e. this week's splash teasers. Blizzard also already has a large loyal crowd that will wait for them. People will be willing to wait months to buy Diablo 3. For example, when Starcraft 2 was announced, people went back and started playing Starcraft. The majority didn't go out and buy Red Alert or whatever. The same way with Diablo 3, I'm pretty sure people will go back to Diablo 2. I keep on repeating myself, but Blizzard has a large foothold in the market, hardcore gamers will wait and do whatever Blizzard wants them do. You don't see them rushing production of a game because people are waiting and asking for the game. Blizzard is a patient company that wants everything done to perfection. I can still remember when Starcraft 2 was announced, they explicitly said, "It will be out when it is ready." And they keep on mentioning that same sentence every time that question appears. They also release Beta's, not only to help in the development of the game, but to also keep the gamer's hype up, as new information will be leaked out, and people will want to play the game even more. The amount of gamers that will go out to play a different game when the game they are waiting for to come out should be very small.
Also, if people are buying Titan Quest instead of Diablo 3, who says they won't buy Diablo 3 also? As you have stated, people get paid every week / every two weeks, they can afford buying both games, can't they? Thus, it won't result in a loss of revenue. And if people can't buy both games, then think about people who want to buy Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 at the same time; they're in the same boat.
edit: check your pm
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I rarely get bored of D2.
I don't just mean one big MMO. I mean combine the three franchises and three genres. Part MMO, part FPS, and part RTS. Start with a base MMO, but put in RTS and FPS as instances. I don't think thats too far fetched. Look at Warcraft III. People make custom maps for it all the time that try to make it an RPG even though its an RTS. Ever play the WoW Warcraft III maps?
Anyhow when I think of hydra, I think a beast with many heads. A game like what I've described is a hydra in essence.
Nobody ever said anything about them spending money frivolously. Their artists and developers are compensated for the work requested of them as it is. I'm sure this campaign has hardly cost them at all.
Once again, I'll explain that the intertwined, semi-simultanious, release date theory was speculation based on release dates at www.bestbuy.com. If you find those dates to be debatable, fine. On what grounds? Do you have proof Best Buy has been wrong in the past? Is there any reason they would put random dates on their site only to retract them, thus creating redundant work?
Rest assured that Blizzard can, at any moment, request those dates be taken down if they disagree with them. Though I do not find the dates to be exactly accurate being that Blizzard can change them, the important thing to note is the closeness of the dates.
During my colleague and I's conversation we thought it would be great to hear them say "Surprise! We've been working on all three titles all along! Enjoy them!" We then inquired if there had been mention of current release dates for WoTLK and/or SC2 and we found, at the very least, a semblance supporting the theory.
Edit: As I stated earlier, I don't find the dates to be concrete data, just the closeness of them:
Problems with your theory here:
1) Diablo has not been officially announced to be the new MMO.
2) Diablo has completely different core gameplay elements- specifically being hack n' slash, as opposed to WoW's turn-based/real-time battle system (basically the same system as that of FFXII.)
3) Diablo caters to a completely different taste- the gothic, dark, deep-thinking kind, whereas WoW is a virtual cartoon of LotR (read all of the extra stuff besides the three books by Tolkien and you'll be amazed to find that he invented the "Dark Elves" and such.)
4) If they are losing money from WoW to Diablo (assuming it's a p2p MMO), then they would still be getting the money, just through another game.
And how does the support for there being three releases credit a special marketing strategy for it?
1) That is true, I am just responding to the OP because he also assumed D3 was going to be released
2&3) See my second long post. I think I address the fact that whether or not they are different genres, coming from Blizzard and having a long history will make their markets conflict.
4) If they were to market the games separately, they would maximize profits because the longer the games are out but not bought, they lose money. If they released each game separately and waited for the hype to die out, optimal sales would happen.
For instance. I will never buy WoTLK. I don't like WoW. This means Blizzard will not get my money until they release SC2 or Diablo III. Do you think they want to wait to get my money until 2010 because there may be other players whom want both games, but can't afford the second until 2010?
Most people get paid once every two weeks. Some once every week. A month in between release dates would be sufficeint. Heck, releasing them all same day would be fine.
I guess I can't be convinced that this is a bad marketing strategy. Why prevent the people whom can buy three games from getting them because one person may need two months to accumulate income for a second purchase?
People are going to buy the game if they're going to by the game. Period. Very few will not buy Diablo III because they dedicate themselves to finishing SC2 first or can't handle owning and playing more than one game at a time. And if they are that type of person, guess what? They would have bought Diablo III if it were released instead anyways, so you may as well release it for those who will.
For those who can play multiple games, guess what, chances are now that; at any given moment, the game they are playing is a Blizzard game. Talk about a household name!
Edit: It's like you're telling me if someone offered you to be the owner of every game ever made you'd decline or offer each game for sale one at a time, yearly. Why not cater to everyones individual preferences?
People will not wanting to pay for something they are not going to use right away. Do you buy a car when you are 10 because you will use it later, but you're taking the bus to school right now?
I wouldn't be surprised if many people purchased Titan Quest due to the absence of Diablo III. Had Diablo III been released, Titan Quest may have gone relatively unnoticed. Blizzard controls these markets. Hack and slash is theirs and theirs alone. They may see the revenue that was generated from Titan Quest as loss of their own potential sales. Titan Quest wasn't established well enough yet to guarantee it's market share like Diablo III would have.
Do you really believe that if an alternative game company had the rights to WoW and SC2 that Blizzard would push back the release of Diablo III in the event the other company announced a similar release date? Additionally, you could always compensate for multiple releases based on sales. Maybe instead of 10 million copies you ship 8 million. Though I feel the amount shipped should coincide with the amount expected regardless of self inflicted competition.
Keep in mind that these are differetly themed games. Not all fps's. In that case, a problem may arise. But then, that'd be like saying 'we're going to release Diablo III, IV, and V all at once.'
Edit: Even in your overstock theory, those games would eventually be sold to those who couldn't originally afford it. People tend to make enough money to spend it on entertainment periodically.
Hydra is a completely random word =D
As for people who will buy other games due to the delay of the Blizzard titles, Blizzard has already taken an aggressive stance towards that with their advertising strategy, i.e. this week's splash teasers. Blizzard also already has a large loyal crowd that will wait for them. People will be willing to wait months to buy Diablo 3. For example, when Starcraft 2 was announced, people went back and started playing Starcraft. The majority didn't go out and buy Red Alert or whatever. The same way with Diablo 3, I'm pretty sure people will go back to Diablo 2. I keep on repeating myself, but Blizzard has a large foothold in the market, hardcore gamers will wait and do whatever Blizzard wants them do. You don't see them rushing production of a game because people are waiting and asking for the game. Blizzard is a patient company that wants everything done to perfection. I can still remember when Starcraft 2 was announced, they explicitly said, "It will be out when it is ready." And they keep on mentioning that same sentence every time that question appears. They also release Beta's, not only to help in the development of the game, but to also keep the gamer's hype up, as new information will be leaked out, and people will want to play the game even more. The amount of gamers that will go out to play a different game when the game they are waiting for to come out should be very small.
Also, if people are buying Titan Quest instead of Diablo 3, who says they won't buy Diablo 3 also? As you have stated, people get paid every week / every two weeks, they can afford buying both games, can't they? Thus, it won't result in a loss of revenue. And if people can't buy both games, then think about people who want to buy Starcraft 2 and Diablo 3 at the same time; they're in the same boat.
edit: check your pm