Relic beats Activision-Blizzard in developer showdown
by Mike Schramm 
Apr 2nd 2009 at 7:00PM
Here's an update, albeit slightly unexpected, from The Escapist's big "March Mayhem" tournament that we reported on a little while ago. They were pitting Relic Entertainment up against Activision-Blizzard in a developer vote-down, and apparently, after a tie and a little ballot box stuffing, Relic, not Blizzard, has emerged out on top. Quite an upset in a number of ways -- Relic was seeded #12 in the bracket, and Activision-Blizzard was seeded as number one (the bracket also included Harmonix, Infinity Ward, and another big MMO developer, Mythic). In fact, Relic also went on to beat Harmonix, and is now facing Bioware for a spot in the final matchup.Is it fair to say, then, that the mighty have fallen? Blizzard was (and still is, for the most part) held in high esteem as a developer -- most of the games they've released in their vast history aren't just hits, they're classics. But even commenters here on our site felt that the "Activision" on the front of the dev's name was distasteful: Blizzard's new owners don't demand as much respect as the studio itself does. And Blizzard has definitely changed lately. Some might say that the developer that allowed Diablo 2 players to play for free on Battle.net (which, to be fair, has had its own issues) isn't the same company that's planning to sell Starcraft II three different times.
And let's not forget that, ballot-stuffing or not, Relic has moved on to beat Harmonix, and still has a chance to win it all, so it could just be that they have a much bigger fan following than anyone expected. But does a loss like this mean Blizzard has fallen from their fans' grace?
| Raised | |
|---|---|
| Lowered | |
| About the same |
Filed under: Polls, Analysis / Opinion, Fan stuff, Blizzard
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Max Apr 2nd 2009 7:05PM
definitely lowered. Corporate greed is never any fun.
Bob Apr 2nd 2009 7:22PM
Activision is quite known for sacrificing quality and detail in order
for them to meet their own deadlines and thereby more profit.
zeroes Apr 16th 2009 3:41AM
Not greed, business as usual.
bobby sixkilla Apr 2nd 2009 7:12PM
Activision-Blizzard is a publisher. Could have quite easily listed Blizzard as a developer, which it is to this day.
Blake Apr 2nd 2009 7:12PM
So some random magazine has a tournament of game developers and in this made up tournament that no one really cares about, Relic beats Blizzard and we have a front page article on it? Meh.
Hendrata Apr 2nd 2009 7:18PM
This.
Who decides that the tournament is important? I did see the announcement of Blizzard vs Relic last week but I didn't even care to vote. I mean you have to go through user creation system and all that, and I never visited that forum to begin with, and it's not like the results are all that important.
So this result doesn't say anything. But the poll that you did is still valid, and in that regard, I think it's the same.
A lot of Wow mess ups that people have blamed Activision for are not really new. They had similar mess ups back in Vanilla.
Insert Apr 2nd 2009 7:21PM
Sounds like a typical fanboy desperately trying to defend his/her 'hero'.
Arivia Apr 2nd 2009 7:39PM
I've read some allegations of ballot stuffing and other hijinks around this, and things are the shippy-shapiest at the Escapist these days (incl. a fair bit of hate-on for WoW). I really wouldn't take it personally or as an indicator of anything.
Tuhljin Apr 3rd 2009 1:27AM
everyone else > fanboy > fanboy-hater > person who thinks everyone who ever defends something a company did that he disagrees with is a fanboy
OIK2 Apr 3rd 2009 1:53AM
I am not a hardcore gamer by any means, but stay pretty current on games and technology. Yet before today I have never heard of Relic, and couldn't tell you a thing about any of their games.
Fess Apr 5th 2009 8:27PM
Who decided *this* site is important?
Matter of perspective.
Blake Apr 5th 2009 11:35PM
No one claimed this site is important.
Beldoro Apr 2nd 2009 7:15PM
I'd be interested to know why so many people are so negative about the Activision thing. From my end, I've seen no real impact on my WoW experience. WotLK was awesome, a huge improvement over a game I thought was great to start with.
Via the merger, Blizzard's original owner is still the majority shareholder in the company. They still have autonomy, same headquarters and the same team working on the game.
What is the issue and what impact has WoW seen?
AlexW573 Apr 2nd 2009 7:21PM
The first main patch after WotLK came out was not done. Also, apparently Blizzard is being pushed to release one major title a year, something they've always said they'll only do if the stuff is ready. It looks like Activision Blizzard has been pushing them to rush things and get them out, instead of waiting until it's ready.
Karilyn Apr 2nd 2009 7:29PM
Blizzard is basically being very heavily encouraged to produce more frequent expansions...
Which sounds like a good idea. Until you realize that this simultaneously means less content per expansion.
It's a direct attempt to squeeze every nickle they can get out of the playerbase.
I honestly would not be surprised if, within the next year or so, Activision moves towards putting out an expansion every 6 months, or maybe even as short as every 3 months. But... Only 1-2 raid instances per expansion.
Essentially, turning what used to be free patches, into expansions that they can make money off of.
thebvp Apr 2nd 2009 7:21PM
I really wish some of Activision's higher ups would read this.
Blizzard is/was so successful thanks to its uncompromising business model; In three words, they don't skimp. They don't skimp on game quality. They don't skimp on player experience, and they certainly don't skimp on customer service. What Blizzard games haven't been classics?
The company I work for does the same thing, but we make outdoor clothing and gear. Our rain jackets, for example, tend to be more expensive than the competition, but it's the difference between buying one $400 rain jacket that will last you 20 years, or buying a $100 rain jacket every other year. Which is the smarter buy? Why have we been resistant to the recession while the competition's business has reduced 35%?
It's because we don't skimp. We offer the best product, bar none. Thank God our corporate overlords have recognized this and largely leave us alone. I really hope Activision does the same with Blizzard.
Please, Activision, don't mess up a good thing.
brugh Apr 2nd 2009 7:24PM
That's the problem. Classifying Activision-Blizzard as a development house is a problem.
They are not a developer, but a publisher/distributor of many studios properties and titles.
If the same survey had been done, and correctly limited to the development studios, I'm sure Blizzard would have fared much better.
zentzuken Apr 2nd 2009 7:25PM
Yeah? Give me a call when people are playing Dawn of War II in 3 years.
Oops no. No one will be playing it in 3 years because it's absolute shit for online play. Just like all of Relic's games, they're "innovative" but lack the polish and balance that Blizzard RTS's come with.
And what did everyone honestly expect from a poll that's conducted in an elitist gaming community?
Activision-Blizzard = Microsoft:
It's big.
It's successful.
It's got supporters.
Once you get too big and too successful, you are AUTOMATICALLY evil. You'll never have the underdog effect. You'll always be seen as the big guy crushing the little guy.
Sell Starcraft II three different times?
Sure smells like cynicism here. I'd gladly pay three times for a Blizzard experience. I should point out to the author of the article that Blizzard is not selling SCII 3 times, but they're selling different campaigns, each with 30 hours of gameplay 3 times. That is worth the money.
Relic will fall to exactly its own copy. A game company that is loved by reviewing elitists like Valve or pick-your-random-little-guy-company-that-made-one-good-game Studios.
To sum it up, the day Blizzard becomes more like Relic, is the day I spoon my eyes out and commit suicide because I don't think I would be able to tolerate the sadness. Seriously go look at some Relic RTS's. Absolute SHIT when it comes to online play.
Mennoknight Apr 2nd 2009 7:48PM
The original Homeworld was a blast to play online. Yes, the matchmaking system was fail, but the actual fighting itself was very entertaining. The game required a ton of thought.
Gadai Apr 3rd 2009 5:33AM
"To sum it up, the day Blizzard becomes more like Relic, is the day I spoon my eyes out and commit suicide because I don't think I would be able to tolerate the sadness."
I sincerely hope not because that would just be a ridiculous over reaction to something, completely out of proportion to the change and surely an indication of an unbalanced mind. I would also debate your capability to commit suicide with a wet spoon after using it to remove your eyes - be funny to watch of course.