Basically, Blizzard tripped over a giant pile of money.
Then they went ahead and bought that bank.
It’s not just StarCraft, obviously, which has made Blizzard its fortune and established its dominance in the world of gaming. Almost everything they’ve laid hands on the in the last ten years has been gold. Oh sure, nobody’s perfect, and they’re bound to have a miss eventually, but when that will happen is anybody’s guess.
It’s always possible they’re on some sort of awesome-game-creating steroids, but until they start having rage issues and their company suffers collective liver failure, we’re going to assume that they operate more or less like the rest of us.
But…it got us to thinking. Blizzard doesn’t do games in every genre, but it’s also not a company that makes the exact same game over and over again, either. While we’re sure that Gran Turismo XVII is a great game, maybe seventeen versions in is time to call it quits.
So what is it, exactly, that Blizzard is doing right? Why is it that when the StarCraft II Beta dropped, everyone and their dog seemed to know about it, and seemed to care? Sure, the original has some nostalgia value, but RTS games are slowly going the way of the dinosaur. Most are hybrid RTS-RPGs or zombie-themed steam punk thrillers that involve Guitar Hero riffs, or something.
The pure RTS genre is a dying breed. So maybe that’s it. Maybe the public has just been hungry for a really good RTS – Command and Conquer IV is in development, and that’s the only other real contender for “old RTS with a big following” points.
That’s not it, though.
We spent some time in our gaming dungeon, pouring over the myriad of games that Blizzard had produced, looking lovingly at all of the artwork and collectible items we received in our deluxe-super-emerald editions of these game. Ok, that’s not true at all. We actually just gave it some thought, thought it through again to make sure it actually made sense, and realized the answer is pretty obvious.
Blizzard makes games that are fun.
That seems stupid, and appallingly apparent, right at first.
But think about it. Think about the massively complicated controllers that each successive generation of console seems to have. Think about the “freedom of choice” and “innovative physics system” and “blah blah blah” that every piece of crap game out there now seems to have.
Now, think about Super Mario Bros. One of the originals, on the NES. We bet you’re smiling – remembering a particularly sweet run through a level or an authoritative victory over that passive-aggressive jerk, Bowser.
And all it took was two buttons and a directional pad.
Games have lost their mojo, lost their fun, and Blizzard figured this out.
It turns out, if you make games fun, and you make them accessible, at a base level, to just about everyone, you make money. Huh. Who’d have thought?
It also turns out that you can release a sequel to a game over 11 years after its original sibling was released, delay the testing of that product for two years, and people will still love both you and it.
Fun, apparently, equals a license to print money.
We’re fun, but we’re sure not rich – we must be doing it wrong.
