I originally wrote this topic's title as "Is Blizzard growing too large to function?", but I think that's a poor way to phrase the discussion. It certainly isn't valid for at least 2 of their 3 franchises, since MoP was one of Wow's best received expansions ever and HotS has been absolutely drowning in hard-earned fan good will. So.. what's so different with Diablo? Why are SC and WoW thriving under Big Blizzard, while Diablo is rotting? 2/3's success rate means that it probably has little to do with Bobby Kotick, sooo... is it incompetency on behalf of Diablo's developers? Even though that's what most of the posters on Diablo forums would suggest, I strongly doubt it. These people were hired by Blizzard, meaning that they are some of the best brains and talents out there. That's a payroll reserved for very, very extraordinary people held to very high standards. I don't think the problem with Diablo is a bloated corporation or incapable game directors. I think the problem, actually, is much more more 'human'. Take a look at these excerpts from the latest 1-page Q&A (x-posted from the front page comments section, sorry about that): This is it. This is why the team can't produce content, can't move forward, and can't make a solid game. They CAN'T make decisions! Even "adding a socket" seems to require board meetings and office discussions ad naseum, with little to show for it. If they're having issues with small things like this, imagine the nightmare it must be deciding on more over-arching game design and direction. So.. why? Why do the Starcraft and WoW teams have such solid visions and consistent progress, while the Diablo team is still paralyzed a year into it? I think the answer is that the team -- like the community -- is currently full of too many conflicting opinions on what makes a good ARPG. I'm willing to bet some serious bucks that the in-house headbutting between "old school" and "new school" is absolutely hamstringing Diablo's ability to move forward. Free specs vs. commitment, deep itemization vs. easy access, casual vs. hardcore, story vs. no story, "badass from level 1" vs. progression, gothic vs. painterly ... There are really two schools of thought at the base of all this, and if the last few years have been any indication, they mix like oil and water. I think the team -- for the future health of the game -- really needs to pick either the oil or water and make the difficult decision to dump the rest. Even in a room full of the smartest people in the world, you're not going to make progress toward a singular goal when you can't even agree on what that goal needs to be.