A short history of Activision Blizzard or how... - Page 12

First, I'd like to commend you for taking the time to write your thoughts up in a clear and readable manner, do a reasonable amount of research, and not just flame Blizzard.

However, that being said, your post is not at all convincing.

While you make no explicit argument in your post, it's pretty obvious what thesis you are trying to support. If I had to put it into words, it would be that "Blizzard has been negatively affected by the merger with Activision. They are now greedy like Activision."
However, this thesis is totally and completely unsupported by the evidence you provide.

First of all, if you want to show that Blizzard is greedier now than they were, you have to provide some point of contrast; in other words, to show that there is a significant difference between the way Blizzard acted before the merger, and the way they act now, you have to provide a picture of what they were like before the merger that contrasts with the way they are now. Now, certainly you can reasonably assume (at least in this case) that most people know Blizzard's reputation, and are able to provide these contrasts themselves...but this does weaken what you're trying to say. And I think you'd find, if you actually looked at what Blizzard was like before the merger, you'd find more commonalities than you think.

Besides that, though, the timeline you provide simply does not support your argument. 3/4ths of the things on the timeline are solely related to Activision and Bobby Kotick, which is great if you're trying to prove that Bobby Kotick is a jerk, but not so good if you're trying to prove that Blizzard are now greedy, uncaring bastards.

Him talking about wanting to mess with Blizzard is better, but still proves nothing, since most of the things he talks about simply haven't happened; which actually works directly against your thesis. There is no in-game advertising; there is pretty much no monetizing of Bnet whatsoever, and the services that Blizzard talks about in another quote are hardly unreasonable.

Oh, and there's the interview with the Activision guy where he talks about how Blizzard is going to operate pretty much as they have before now, and that they're going to be fairly independent. You seem to think the "fairly independent" is some kind of contradiction with the rest of the statement, but if you knew how Blizzard has operated in the past, you wouldn't be. For most of Blizzard's existence, they've been owned by some other corporation; these corporations have varied in the amount they left Blizzard alone and the amount they meddled with her, but they've always been interested in the bottom line, and they've always had some degree of oversight over her. In general, though, Blizzard has been "fairly independent" for quite a long time.

Most of the information you provide, then, is superfluous.

Let's talk, then, about the three or four actual relevant pieces of information you bring up about Blizzard's actions after the merger, information you arrange in such a fashion as to suggest that Blizzard is acting in a greedy or uncaring fashion, with the implication that this is due to Bobby Kotick and Activision: (1)WoW paid stuff. (2): Starcraft 2 being a Trilogy. (3): No LAN (4): Map Marketplace (5): Blizzcon ticket prices being raised (?) (6): Facebook integration.

Let's go through these one by one, shall we?

(1): WoW.

Okay...I'm going to be very clear with this. Adding paid stuff to WoW makes Blizzard money. Blizzard is a corporation, whose main purpose is to make money. These paid things are features, meaning they add some value if used. Features are good, even if they make money for the company who does them; they are especially good if the community wants them. They are only bad when they make money in such a fashion as to directly hurt the gameplay or the community. This is simply not the case here.
Most of these features (such as paid character customization) came about largely at the behest of the community, are used widely by the community, and are generally enjoyed by them. In addition, none of them significantly affect gameplay. Remember: adding features is only a bad thing when it hurts the game or community in some way. Otherwise, it is a good thing. And if it's a feature that the community has asked for, it's a better thing.

Also, linking the use of paid features on WoW to Activision is highly questionable, considering the first of them actually was released a full year before the merger, in 2006.

However, one could, if one wished, link the recent "pet store" and "mount store" stuff to Activision, since it is more gameplay-related than the other features. However, they still do not affect gameplay, are totally cosmetic, and thus are VERY far away from the Kotick-style merchandising of games like Guitar Hero.

Thus, while this example may help you with the thesis that "Blizzard has been affected by the merger," it will not help you with your "Blizzard are greedy bastards" one.

(2): Starcraft 2 as a Trilogy.

I'm going to be honest here. I am utterly sick and tired of people bringing this up as an example of Blizzard being greedy. It is so utterly wrong-headed and has been proven so so many times in so many ways I hardly know where to start. First of all, the other games are expansions, like BW, and will be priced like it. Secondly, the decision was made based on Blizzard's quality standards and in order not to delay the game too much. Thirdly, Blizzard had always, from the beginning of development, planned to have two expansions (probably originally to make up for what they knew would be an extra-long development cycle). Fourthly, Blizzard is jamming more content into each of these games then in the whole of SC1. I don't know how hard it is to get through people's skulls that Blizzard made the decision for the good of the game and the community.
If someone seriously wants to argue that this is an example of Blizzard being greedy, I would be happy to drench him in sources that prove otherwise. Until then, this should suffice.

(3): No LAN.

This is the best example you have. I could say that Blizzard made this decision because they thought it was for the best for the community and the game, but if you've already decided that they're greedy bastards, there's no reason you'd believe them anyway. And in any event, you could still use it as an example of Blizzard being arrogant and not listening to what the community wants. So I will concede this one example to you. Congrats.

(4): Map Marketplace.

The Map Marketplace is a great idea, frankly, and really, really good for the community. It provides one place where you can go to get custom maps, a big showroom for all the talented map-makers out there, and the fact that some (read: very, very few. Blizzard has said that only people who basically create their own game using the engine would get money) of the most talented map-makers out there will get money for doing the equivalent of making their own game using Blizzard's tools is great, and will provide the impetus for many great projects.

The fact that Blizzard is taking a percentage of the money involved is far from excessive, Kotick-style greed; all store sites take some amount of money from sellers in exchange for the notoriety and out-there-ness they're getting. And the fact that the map-makers will be using Blizzard's tools and Blizzard's engines only increases the fairness of the arrangement. And since we don't know how much Blizzard is going to take anyway (and I doubt it's even been decided yet) it's pretty much a moot point.

And the idea that Blizzard thought up this idea as a huge money-maker is somewhat absurd. Setting up and maintaining the system will cost a lot of time and money, and with the rules for "premium maps" that they've given us, I doubt they'll be making a lot of profit off of it. It's not anything near to selling cheap plastic guitars and drum sets.

So, again: adding a feature is not bad. Adding a feature with the intent of making money from that feature is also not bad, so long as it does not deleteriously affect the game or the community. In fact, it is good. The Map Marketplace is a great community tool, thought of with the good of the community in mind, that will also make Blizzard some amount of money. It does not support your thesis.

(6): Blizzcon tickets being raised, and paid DirectTV feed.

I'm not sure if this belongs in here. Putting on Blizzcon is profitable for the company, since it is basically a great deal of advertising that also makes them money. However, it still costs them, and especially the development team, a great deal of time and money to put on, and so to justify it, they basically have to make a fairly large profit off of it. In addition, it provides a great service to the community, is by all accounts a great show, and it's clear everyone at Blizzard is very committed to making it a great experience that is worth the time and money people spend in buying tickets and getting there.

To be honest, raising the ticket price by $25 is pretty minor. Maybe if it were in a list full of slam-dunks, it could work as an additional, minor example to confirm a trend. But as it is, the basic thing stands: Blizzard wants to make a profit off of Blizzcon. This is not a bad thing, since, again, it is a good feature that provides an excellent service to the community. Every year, they have rented bigger and bigger convention halls, trying to get as many people as they can in to answer the demand from the community. The fact that they raised the ticket prices could be for any number of reasons; but primarily, they were hosting more people that year in a larger hall with more extravagent gifts and presentations, including even Ozzy Ozbourne, who couldn't be cheap. So there is at least more content for the raised price.
The DirectTV, is, again, a feature, in that it allows some of the millions of people who tried and failed to get a Blizzcon ticket to sort-of attend, anyway. It costs significantly less than the ticket, but allows people to get the content live. It is a feature that does not harm the community, adds a feature, and makes Blizzard money at the same time. It is a Good.

(6): Facebook integration.

I don't know how clear I need to be on this. It is a feature, which is convenient for some people, and hurts no one else. It probably took a developer five minutes to write the requisite code. It costs nothing.

If this is greed, then I'd sure like to see charity. Adding in stuff about Facebook privacy concerns, with the stupid, conspiracy-theory suggestion that Blizzard is only doing it so they can steal people's personal information does not help your case.


In conclusion, then, your evidence simply does not support your thesis. It does not support the "greedy bastard" conclusion, and does not show a significant link of this to Activision. You have selectively stuck various bits of "evidence" (most of which does not support your thesis) together in such a way as to form a narrative that supports what you had already concluded before you began looking for evidence. It is not convincing.

You also leave out a great deal of evidence that does not support your thesis: namely, the vast majority of Blizzard's actions over the past few years, the entire development cycle of SC2, etc.

For all these reasons, I am not convinced by your thesis in the least.

You have, however, convinced me that Bobby Kotick is evil. Congrats.


P.S: Note that even if you are otherwise unhappy about Blizzard's actions in regards to things like Chat Channels, that does not have much to do with the thesis. Blizzard's reasons for not putting in chat channels have nothing to do with Bobby Kotick; they do not increase profits in the least, they are not a monetization, etc. It's pretty clear that chat channels are a design decision, as said in dozens of interviews. It may be a design decision you don't agree with, it may be a design decision that shows that Blizzard doesn't understand or care about the community like they should...but the causal link between that and Activision is not really there. Unless someone wants to show me otherwise.