Blizzard Activision Sued Over Company Culture - Page 35

HONG KONG, June 20 (Reuters) - Internet and gaming giant NetEase (9999.HK) delayed the rollout of its video game Diablo Immortal in China three days ahead of its official launch, a move that comes just after the game's official account on Weibo was banned from making new posts.

China-based NetEase, which was set to release the game on Thursday, did not provide a new launch date, but said on Sunday it wanted to make changes such as improvements to the game-play experience and conduct "multiple optimization adjustments".

The company did not address the social media ban in the statement and it was unclear what triggered the decision. NetEase also did not respond to a Reuters' request for comment.

Co-developed by NetEase and Activision Blizzard (ATVI.O), Diablo Immortal is one of the most-anticipated games this year and its China launch is being closely watched to gauge Beijing's attitude towards the country's $46-billion video games market that was hit by sweeping regulatory crackdowns last year.

The company received a gaming license from Chinese regulators for the game last February, before authorities months later rolled out new rules and halted issuances of new game licenses for almost nine months. The nod had garnered attention as the Diablo franchise focuses on slaying demons and witches — themes seen to jar with Chinese regulators' dislike of games with violent or religious content.

Diablo Immortal was already released outside of China on June 2, and as per app-tracking platform App Magic, it has earned over $24 million during the first two weeks since the rollout. The China launch was expected to give the title another boost as the Asian country would be the game's biggest market.

The title had recorded pre-registrations from over 15 million users last week, according to NetEase.

Shares of the company slid more than 9% on Monday.

Video game publisher Activision Blizzard’s lawyers and employees were back in front of the National Labor Relations Board this week, arguing over who should get to vote on a potential Blizzard Albany union. Activision Blizzard’s lawyers have framed much of their argument in the Blizzard Albany hearing around the highly anticipated upcoming Blizzard game “Diablo IV.”

At stake in the hearing is which Blizzard Albany workers will be able to participate in a unionization vote. Speaking at a virtual hearing over the video conference platform Zoom, the company’s lawyers stated the position that anyone at the Blizzard Albany studio working on Diablo games should get a vote. Meanwhile, employees’ counsel asked for a group of 20 quality assurance testers to constitute the bargaining unit. The testers at Blizzard Albany seek to unionize to bargain for improved working conditions and higher wages.

“I think it’s very cut and dry,” said a current Blizzard Albany quality assurance tester, speaking on the condition of anonymity, referencing a document lawyers showed of employees’ salaries and hourly wages. "[It’s] obvious that QA is a valid unit. [Activision Blizzard] introduced the pay bands, which indicate that we are the lowest paid members of the studio by a long shot.”

Quality assurance testers at Blizzard Albany are paid between $33,000 and $53,000 annually, according to a document shared by the QA testers’ lawyers during this week’s hearing. The group of 20 quality assurance testers at the Albany, N.Y.-based studio requested recognition of a union in July, but management did not voluntarily recognize them.

“The instinct to delay unionization efforts is always there on the part of employers,” said Wilma Liebman, former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board under former president Barack Obama. “The reasons for wanting the delay may be manifold, including not only the obvious — delay what may be inevitable — but for possible transactional reasons [with Microsoft.]”

Microsoft is purchasing Activision Blizzard for nearly $69 billion in an all-cash deal, pending regulatory approval. The Xbox and Windows maker previously said in June it would respect the rights of Activision Blizzard workers to join a union.

Activision Blizzard wants to increase the eligible voting group for a union election at Blizzard Albany, arguing that additional — but not all — workers at the studio should be included.

“We believe all our employees should have the right to choose whether or not to join a union in a fair and confidential vote,” Activision Blizzard spokesman Rich George said. “Given our tightly integrated Albany operations, we believe strongly that no employee should be disenfranchised and that creativity, inspiration and the free exchange of ideas work best when all nonsupervisory employees in Albany working on Diablo get to participate in the vote, not just 20 quality assurance testers identified by the union.”

Increasing the size of the voting pool could dilute the voting power of the 20 QA testers, labor lawyers say, potentially causing the unionization vote to fail.

Blizzard Albany is the second Activision Blizzard studio that has attempted to unionize at the company, which is facing multiple investigations over sexual harassment. Known for its work on franchises including Guitar Hero and Crash Bandicoot under its former name, Vicarious Visions, the studio officially merged with Activision Blizzard in April to become Blizzard Albany. The studio’s quality assurance department there took cues for its organizing campaign from Raven Software, another Activision-owned studio in Madison, Wis., where on May 28 QA testers won their bid to unionize. They are currently undergoing bargaining efforts for a contract.

While counsel for management has revisited many of the arguments it used against Raven Software quality assurance testers, there’s one notable difference: As part of an opening speech, Reed Smith lawyers representing Activision Blizzard played a “Diablo IV” trailer to explain what the company does. When the video began, a voice-over stated the game was not for the faint-of-heart and was both gory and creepy.

“How are we going to put this into the record?” asked Ruth Basantes, the National Labor Relations Board hearing officer overseeing the Monday meeting. Reed Smith lawyer James Polk responded by spelling out the YouTube link for the court reporter using a series of letters and symbols.

The upcoming dark fantasy action role-playing game, in which players battle various hellspawn, is slated for release sometime next year. Throughout the labor hearing this week, Activision Blizzard lawyers supplied internal conversations, spreadsheets and other notes that shared insights on what gamers can expect in “Diablo IV.” One document described feedback given by gamers on “Diablo IV,” including one person saying the game was difficult but not in a fun way, as retrieving gear from one’s own dead body after dying was tough.

“It is darkly ironic that if an employee wants to be able to update their portfolio or do something that might help them find better employment elsewhere, they have to wait until the game is released,” said one current Blizzard Albany employee, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media. “But when the company wants to argue against what the majority of employees in a given unit have stated is in their best interest and what they want, it’s totally fine for them to just share stuff.”

A list of quality assurance testers working on “Diablo IV” was also publicized in the hearing, as were the cover letter, LinkedIn and social media account of a quality assurance tester. While quality assurance testers are usually recognized in a game’s credits, along with thousands of others who helped create the game, the singling out of the testers and public disclosure of the QA tester’s information angered some employees concerned with online harassment.

“Given how toxic a lot of fandoms and gamers can be, it’s pretty upsetting to see [everyone’s names] publicized when it didn’t really have to be like this,” the employee said. “This didn’t have to be a fight that went to the NLRB. [Management] could’ve just chosen to recognize the unit.”

During the hearing, Activision Blizzard’s lawyers argued that while employees working on Diablo games at Blizzard Albany should be eligible to vote in a union election, those at the studio working on “World of Warcraft” or “Overwatch” should not. It’s unclear why the lawyers took a different approach from February, when they argued all of Raven Software should vote on a union — not just their quality assurance testers. A majority of votes (50 percent plus one) is needed to form a union.

George, the Activision Blizzard spokesman, said in a statement that “some employees working at Albany are not included in our proposal, as they either work on non-Diablo projects or are ineligible (for example, they might manage people).” The Post asked specifically why workers on other games should not participate in the Blizzard Albany union vote, but the company had not replied at the time of publication Friday.

Employees said the “Diablo IV” team at Blizzard Albany is integrated with the Irvine, Calif.-based team that is also working on the title, while those working on other games at Blizzard Albany interface more regularly with other teams.

“Diablo IV” is a title slated for later next year, and takes place after the events of “Diablo III” when demons and angels killed millions. The “Diablo IV” documents were shared by lawyers while elsewhere online, players trying the game in a beta test have been leaking footage.

On Monday, employees across Activision Blizzard executed a protest during the virtual hearing, with several dozen workers attending the Zoom hearing with their pictures saying “ABK Stop Union Busting,” or changing their display name to “stop union busting,” which irked Activision Blizzard’s lawyers. Polk, the Reed Smith lawyer, objected to the protesters, calling them potentially “disruptive” and asking that the NLRB remove those images and have people change their names. In response, the board hearing officer Basantes said the virtual hearing was akin to an in-person one, where anyone could attend and those in attendance wouldn’t know others’ names on sight. Basantes then allowed protesters to rename themselves to “Guest,” which allowed more than one Activision Blizzard employee to rejoin the meeting without worrying about their employer noting their real names.

On Thursday, Basantes revisited the protest incident, saying: “As I recall, no one was being disruptive. So there was no need to kick anyone out of the meeting.” She made an analogy that if people had been wearing shirts with slogans to an in-person hearing, they wouldn’t be asked to give their real names or to change their shirts.

Kayla Blado, press secretary for the NLRB, said to expect a decision in the coming weeks. Activision Blizzard still has to submit its briefs by Aug. 25 before the hearing officer can make a decision.

On June 18 2022 16:19 Magic Powers wrote:
I mean Raynor did say it's possible for anyone to just leave their job whenever they want. No consequences to consider, we all exist in a vacuum.

On August 14 2022 06:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Video game publisher Activision Blizzard’s lawyers and employees were back in front of the National Labor Relations Board this week, arguing over who should get to vote on a potential Blizzard Albany union.

Microsoft's $68.7 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard is expected to be investigated extensively by both UK and EU regulators.

Earlier this month, the UK's Competition and Markets Authority recommended it begin a second-phase investigation into impact of the deal, concerned that Microsoft's ownership of Activision Blizzard would "result in a substantial lessening of competition within a market or markets in the United Kingdom."

Microsoft was given five business days to supply evidence that would allay these concerns, but the Financial Times reports it has opted not to do so.

Sources familiar with the situation told the FT that Microsoft believed there were no obvious commitments it could make that the CMA would be likely to accept.

As such, an in-depth investigation is expected to start this week.

The FT's sources also expect a similar situation with regulators in the European Union.

Both Activison and Xbox have been in pre-notification talks with regulators in Brussels since January, with Microsoft expected to officially file its case in the coming weeks.

People familiar with the process expect regulators to carry out a more scrutinous investigation due to its size and potential impact.

"It's a big deal, a difficult deal," a source from Brussels told the FT. "It needs an extensive investigation."

One point of contention remains the implications for Xbox's main rival Sony, especially with the possibility of making Call of Duty – one of the biggest games franchises in the world – exclusive to Microsoft's platforms.

Xbox has repeatedly assured it will not do this, at least not in the short term, with Xbox boss Phil Spencer recently revealing the company was making an agreement to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation for "several more years."

PlayStation CEO Jim Ryan responded via a statement to GamesIndustry.biz, claiming the proposed deal was "inadequate on many levels."

In the wake of the CMA's recommendations for a longer investigation, Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick said he still expects the acquisition to be approved and completed by the end of June 2023.

Update: Sony has responded to the CMA's decision to further investigate the acquisition, and says it "welcomes the announcement."

"By giving Microsoft control of Activision games like Call of Duty, this deal would have major negative implications for gamers and the future of the gaming industry," the firm said in a statement to GamesIndustry.biz. "We want to guarantee PlayStation gamers continue to have the highest quality gaming experience, and we appreciate the CMA’s focus on protecting gamers."

Microsoft has responded to Sony's comment regarding the shooter franchise. In a statement to us, a spokesperson said: "It makes zero business sense for Microsoft to remove Call of Duty from PlayStation given its market leading console position."

The Federal Trade Commission will "likely" move to file an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft and Activision Blizzard to block the companies' planned $69 billion merger deal. That's according to a new Politico report citing "three [unnamed] people with knowledge of the matter."

While Politico writes that a lawsuit is still "not guaranteed," it adds that FTC staffers "are skeptical of the companies' arguments" that the deal will not be anticompetitive. The sources also confirmed that "much of the heavy lifting is complete" in the commission's investigation, and that a suit could be filed as early as next month.

Sony, the main opponent of Microsoft's proposed purchase, has argued publicly that an existing contractual three-year guarantee to keep Activision's best-selling Call of Duty franchise on PlayStation is "inadequate on many levels." In response, Microsoft Head of Xbox Phil Spencer has publicly promised to continue shipping Call of Duty games on PlayStation "as long as there's a PlayStation out there to ship to." It's not clear if the companies have memorialized that offer as a legal agreement, though; The New York Times reported this week that Microsoft had offered a "10-year deal to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation."

Numerous statements from Microsoft executives, including Spencer, have suggested the company is less interested in bolstering its position in the "console wars" and more interested in boosting its mobile, cloud gaming, and Game Pass subscription offerings. Beyond Call of Duty, Politico reports that the FTC is concerned over how Microsoft "could leverage future, unannounced titles to boost its gaming business."

Microsoft "is prepared to address the concerns of regulators, including the FTC, and Sony to ensure the deal closes with confidence," spokesperson David Cuddy told Politico. "We'll still trail Sony and Tencent in the market after the deal closes, and together Activision and Xbox will benefit gamers and developers and make the industry more competitive."

Plenty of speed bumps remain

The reports of a potential FTC lawsuit add to a growing list of troubling signals about the proposed purchase from various international governments. Earlier this month, the European Commission said it was moving on to an "in-depth investigation" of the deal. In the UK, a similar "Phase 2" investigation by the country's Competition and Markets Authority has scheduled hearing for next month.

Those international investigations are expected to wrap up in March, ensuring the proposed deal won't close before then and giving the FTC some time before it would have to file suit. Any such lawsuit would need to be approved by a majority of the four current FTC commissioners and would likely start in the FTC's administrative court. And whatever the outcome, legal maneuvering in the case could easily delay the planned merger past a July 2023 contractual deadline, at which point both companies would have to renegotiate or abandon the deal.

An FTC lawsuit in this matter would also be a the strongest sign yet of a robust antitrust enforcement regime under FTC chair Lina Kahn, a big tech skeptic who was named to the post in June. Back in July, Kahn announced an antitrust lawsuit against Meta (formerly Facebook) and its proposed $400 million purchase of Within, makers of VR fitness app Supernatural.

Three months after Microsoft's proposed purchase was announced in January, a group of four US Senators wrote an open letter strongly urging the FTC to take a close look at the deal. Last month, merger news site Dealreporter said FTC staff had expressed "significant concerns" about the deal. And this week, the New York Times cited "two people" in reporting that the FTC had reached out to other companies for sworn statements laying out their concerns about the deal, a possible sign of lawsuit preparations.

On November 26 2022 15:21 thePunGun wrote:
I really hope they don't block the merger. Because Phil Spencer is still interested in the idea of making another Starcraft rts. (souce)

The FTC has filed a legal challenge to try and block Microsoft’s plan to buy Activision Blizzard for $68.7 billion, according to a press release from the regulator. The lawsuit was filed today after weeks of back and forth between Microsoft, Sony, and regulators over competition concerns and the future of Call of Duty. The FTC argues that the acquisition would “enable Microsoft to suppress competitors to its Xbox gaming consoles and its rapidly growing subscription content and cloud-gaming business.”

The vote from the FTC commissioners today means Microsoft now faces significant hurdles to get its Activision Blizzard deal complete. Regulators in the UK and EU are also scrutinizing the deal closely, despite Microsoft’s repeated attempts to appease regulators.

“Microsoft has already shown that it can and will withhold content from its gaming rivals,” said Holly Vedova, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition said in a statement. “Today we seek to stop Microsoft from gaining control over a leading independent game studio and using it to harm competition in multiple dynamic and fast-growing gaming markets.”

Microsoft offered Sony a 10-year deal on new Call of Duty games last month, but Sony hasn’t yet accepted the offer. A similar deal was agreed between Nintendo and Microsoft, though. It could see Call of Duty heading to Nintendo consoles if the Activision Blizzard deal is approved.

Microsoft’s frustrations over Sony’s objections to its Activision Blizzard deal have been clear. “Sony has emerged as the loudest objector,” said Microsoft president Brad Smith in a Wall Street Journal op-ed recently. “It’s as excited about this deal as Blockbuster was about the rise of Netflix.” Microsoft also described the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) concerns as “misplaced” and accusing the regulator of adopting “Sony’s complaints without considering the potential harm to consumers.”

Microsoft has also accused Sony of paying developers to keep their content off of its Xbox Game Pass service, and Sony has even argued that Microsoft’s Activision Blizzard acquisition could “hurt developers and lead to price rises.”