All this shows is how little control Activision has over Blizzard. When you're making 60% you're parents total revenue, its pretty much "I do want I want"
It's true that Blizzard still has a lot of autonomy now, but I see it gradually eroding. Modern Warfare 2 was one of Activision's most successful products (Activision's fastest selling game ever), and while it pales in comparison to WoW profits, it's still a huge segment of Activision's overall profits, and Activision management didn't bother to treat the developers behind the game well, especially when they fucked with the employee's bonuses so they would receive them much more slowly, if at all.
To be honest, given that a lot of ex-Blizzard employee groups that form their own studios never see the same level of success as Blizzard itself, people (and Activision management) might believe that individuals or small groups don't make that much of a difference in the final sales of products and change things accordingly.
On June 19 2010 07:48 Zona wrote: Actually the above part which I quoted is not only interesting for what he says, but what he doesn't say.
He only wants one of his product lines to be subscription. He says nothing about having better or happier employees (in fact reading more in this thread seems to show he doesn't want happy employees), not running Tony Hawk or Guitar Hero into the ground, having more success in overseas markets, or whatever.
Trying to argue over what any representative didn't say in an interview is both misleading and a weak argument. He also said nothing about whether Activision plans on going to the moon any time soon. Hyperbole to be sure, but it illustrates the point - just because it's not mentioned there doesn't mean it's not a topic. The questions weren't asked, or he didn't have a response prepared (more likely) on those topics.
I'm pretty against Activision on all of this (cancelled my pre-order of SC2, etc. etc. etc. bandwagon), but complaining about the things they didn't say is a pretty poor argument to be trying to make.
All this shows is how little control Activision has over Blizzard. When you're making 60% you're parents total revenue, its pretty much "I do want I want"
It's true that Blizzard still has a lot of autonomy now, but I see it gradually eroding. Modern Warfare 2 was one of Activision's most successful products (Activision's fastest selling game ever), and while it pales in comparison to WoW profits, it's still a huge segment of Activision's overall profits, and Activision management didn't bother to treat the developers behind the game well, especially when they fucked with the employee's bonuses so they would receive them much more slowly, if at all.
To be honest, given that a lot of ex-Blizzard employee groups that form their own studios never see the same level of success as Blizzard itself, people (and Activision management) might believe that individuals or small groups don't make that much of a difference in the final sales of products and change things accordingly.
Well, I'm not going to argue with this fear, its very valid and I even share it, but there is a crucial difference between Mike Morhaime and Frank Zampell and Jason West.
IW-ward is owned by Activision. Blizzard is owned by Activision Blizzard. Its a subtle difference, but significant.
On June 19 2010 06:46 Laski wrote: That last batch of interviews you linked states that they focus on spending money to make better games and not corporate amenities and fluff, that they are concerned more with the integrity of franchise names rather than corporate names, and that they want to continue their success for the next 10 years while expanding the video game industry as the premier entertainment industry.
I am not trying to be a Kotick/Activision defender here, but if you honestly expect those articles to provoke a negative response you chose poorly.
You're right, it may be misread... and it was a little too long anyways so I think I'll cut it down a little and focus on the interesting parts...
Although it's basically more of the same "we'll run these brands into the ground" argumentation because (despite what happened to Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero last year when they closed down 3+ companies) they seem to not realize that oversaturating a market with something can be a bad thing
The other point related to the "there is so much demand for features and services" is another rehash and self-justification of his earlier quotes/mentions that "people want to pay for them"... Just cause someone thinks it is a good idea to change his name or a lot of people want some minor game features like say a "pet" (or whatever you can think of really) doesn't exactly mean that they should cost 25$... Usually (in the past) such suggestions if deemed good were delivered in free Patches or Add-Ons (like Valve still does it) to please the people paying a Subscription to a service or thanking them for buying your game (and they continued doing so, cause they loved you).
How you think that taking away every enticement to work somewhere while depressing and overworking your employees (or his awesome example of letting them wait 5 years to fix a carpet with tape xD) is going to help the morale and making a better game is beyond me...
People work best and are creative when they're happy, and especially Blizzard was proof of that:
It looks like Blizzard Entertainment got yet another game in early development. If you are a programmer with awesome skills and experience in the game industry, you have the opportunity to join the best international game studios and all what comes attached to that: good salary, benefits, reputation and access to the in-house gym and cafeteria to boot.
I understand that at the end of the day, a company has to make money. But the idea that Activision chews developers up and spits them out really isn't anything new. They tried to do the same thing with the Civilization series that they did with Call of Duty and Guitar Hero back in the early part of the decade.
Something you might consider is that this company doesn't actually produce anything. Essentially their business model is, and always has been, extracting wealth from capital. Creative people need to be inspired, not flogged with balance sheets rolled up in duct tape. That goes back to the idea that at the end of the day, people need a reason to spend their money. If the people who develop their games are working in a cubicle farm as opposed to an environment that cultivates creativity and fun, the games are going to begin to reflect that, as has already been stated. So this really begins and ends with an informed consumer, but there is a greater point here that I think a lot of people are oblivious to.
Even though Blizzard may be an exception in terms of Activision's attitude toward the people who supply them with the products they sell, it's simply due to the fact that the company didn't get into their business model at the ground level. If you think that Blizzard is somehow going to be immune to Activision's culture looking forward, I dare say you may be a bit naive, because the act of milking a brand for all it's worth is already present in Warcraft. I don't mean just cosmetic things like model recolors. Rampant botting and gold selling indicate to me that the company has developed a cynical attitude toward their customers as well, and they can get away with it specifically because of branding, name recognition and the fact that they are a major distributor. It's already pay-per-win in the sense that they construct artificial barriers to progress that dictate you pay more subscription dollars. If you think they aren't using this business model to manipulate their player base, again, I dare say you may be more than a bit naive. Look at Activision's interest in other pay-per-win ventures.
There is a specific reason behind their decision to make it easier than ever for hackers to hack, botters to bot, and for the implementation of features that have eroded the once close-knit community down to a nub. You think all these gear ninjas and nasty, anti-social people are so prevalent just because of random happenstance? I dare say that they are anything but random, but that these decisions were made to keep the customer playing, and paying longer.
Incredibly well thought out and implemented post. Its good to make the gaming public actually aware of what the company does. This really just solidifies the opinion i had beforehand that blizzard really is the good guy being bullied by blactivision
This is quite the summary I must say! One of the greatest threads i've ever read on a forum, if not the greatest. You brought a lot of information into one place where it has full impact. Really neat topic and i'm glad this post is here to summarize it and inform more people on just how this whole thing is playing out... One thing I noticed you didn't specifically mention, which I don't blame you being on a SC2 forum, is that for DLC releases for their Xbox games, Activision has slowly been increasing the prices. For example map packs for CoD (call of duty) used to be ~800 MSP (microsoft points) which is like $10 or something, but now they're 1200 points which is $15. I think that we'll see the same trend with micropayments with SC2... They'll test the water with low prices and then ramp them up to see what they can get away with. Just my thoughts though. Once again really good post!!
Man after reading the last part about E3 a little of me died inside. I can seriously feel that we're going to get screwed over by micro transactions in SC2. I don't even want to imagine how D3 will be with regards to that now.
Robert Kotick is the hallmark of what happens when a software publishing studio becomes too large. while largely a proponent of capitalist system, the corporate model in the gaming industry is disastrous. with activision-blizzard (soon to be activision-blizzard-bungie... *irk* ) becoming a huge corporation we see the management shifting from in-house enthusiasts to outside mercenarial professional management. The problem begins at the board of directors, a group of investors whose only concern is how big the difference from the revenue line subtracted from the cost line is. Robert Kotick is a product of the corporate model and an unfortunate one at that.
Though can you completely blame him? Kotick is a professional manager and his boss is the board and they can fire him anytime they feel his job is less than "satisfactory." Obviously he is expected to be profit maximizing. Blizzard's merger with Activision was depressing but Blizzard's autonomy has certainly been noticed and u can tell activision's acknowledgement of the near perfect forumla blizzard has concocted.
I will say Kotick's idea for ingame advertising in starcraft is beyond awful and two thumbs down for that idea.
I don’t mind being whored out to a bunch of money-grubbing pricks in the gaming world, since it basically holds true everywhere else in life. But some of the things he said are just plain awful. I mean we all know that the point it to maximize profit but when he straight up says “Don’t care, you’re gonna buy it anyways” his arrogance kind of gets on my nerves. Unfortunately, SC2, and D3 are likely going to go the way of WoW, but don’t worry, there will be an SC3 and D4 before you know it right?
Or maybe, they will try to fire all of the blizzard employees instead of paying them like they did with IW and then they will form their own company and we will get our beloved blizzard back…minus the games we love since activi$ion has the rights to them.
Sorry, but I don't see whats so bad about blizzard. You have Bnet.2 although at the current state is not that good, however they will improve it i.e. adding chat channels and cross realm play.
But, people slagging off Activision are naive in a sense that all businesses are like this. To survive and build a company you need to make ruthless decisions, for example even google decided to censor their search engine in China.
Also, WoW isn't SC2, you can't really have a pay to play feature in it.
P.S. But, yeah for people who think that a company doesn't want to make a lot of money and exploit their customer base is naive, espically in a cut throat business that is video games.
P.P.S. Also, in a way MW2 seems rushed as its buggy as hell and SC2 doesn't really suffer that problem and seems sort of balanced in the beta.
P.P.P.S. Granted, a lot of the problems are in the people who buy games. MW2 sucks however is hugely popular and sold loads.
There is only one thing people like this listen to MONEY!!! If you want this culture to change DON'T BUY THEIR PRODUCTS if you lack the fortitude to do this than don't cry when they exploit your passion for gaming and charge you monthy for the privilege of playing online (and the games are client hosted by you or your opponent , the servers just connect you to each other for matchmaking), charge you for new maps, charge you to buy the game, charge you to play in tournaments, release 2 expansions or sequals a year, charged for anti hack updates (because if they can't make money from cheat updates they won't bother making them. Do you think they care if your experience gets ruined, if they believe your still so gullible you'll keep forking over your money regardless?)Blizzard is not Blizzard anymore, it's Activision Blizzard, the company you love is gone forever. RIP BLIZZARD the best damn gaming company that has ever existed. You can always be patient and hopeful and just get the inevitable cracked SC2 which will have chat rooms, free private servers, multiple accounts, not require your credit card number, and you won't be supporting this kind of repulsive greed and manipulation. Let me add that this is strictly hypothetical and no cracked online sc2 exists to my knowledge.
Watch from 0:27 to the 1 minute mark. Would Dusting be making jokes like this if he knew then what we all know today about Bnet 2.0 and the sequel hungry Activision?
"""Guys, Blizzard still owned by Vivendi. Activision has almost zero control over Blizzard. This whole "Activision Blizzard" name was brought about because it sounded good. This whole write-up, while thorough, spins the events and takes things out of context. Think of how many things Blizzard did do because of fan feedback.
The battlecruiser shot, graphics revamp, nerfing of the mothership, etc. You guys are blowing things way out of proportion. Yes, Battlenet 2.0 may be less than ideal, but the core game is still fantastic, and they still are very engaged with the community for a modern game developer.
You all also do realize that everything Blizzard did was for a reason, not because their evil money gabbers. You may disagree with their reasons, but they are not just trying to be some evil corporate entity, and Activision is not trying to make them one. For example, the game was split into three parts because the campaign was so big and intricate. The expansions will be no more than $40, and we'll be gifted with double the new units we would normally get.
TLDR: The write-up is fundamentally flawed. It takes things out of context and ignores many facts without directly linking all the events it described to BNet 2.0's currents state. Activision has zero control over Blizzard, and neither entity is trying to make SCII some cheap money grab.""""
This not true at all....
Activision may not own Blizzard however they still have a significant influence over the company. Hence is why they moved a COO from Activision to Blizzard. Activision will push there companies core policies, beliefs, Mission Statement, as well as other practice with Blizzard.
The corruption will be slow and take many years but will eventually happen. Do understand though that a companies sole reason for being is to provide profits to its shareholders.
Activisions Influence:
Starcraft 2 moving to have 2 Expansions (Although this can be a good thing) "Total Control" over Map Publishing (Absolute Bullshit) Lack of LAN Support Facebook Integration No Chat Channels (Does this look like other Activision Titles?)
This is activision telling us what they think what is best for us...
Still want to argue that Activision has no influence over Blizzard... If they didn't want to have an influence over Blizzard You think they would have spent Billions on an investment and not try and have some kind of influence over it?
On June 21 2010 00:07 Ivo wrote: There is a specific reason behind their decision to make it easier than ever for hackers to hack, botters to bot, and for the implementation of features that have eroded the once close-knit community down to a nub. You think all these gear ninjas and nasty, anti-social people are so prevalent just because of random happenstance? I dare say that they are anything but random, but that these decisions were made to keep the customer playing, and paying longer.
Did you register just to post the most unlikely conspiracy theory of all time? Never mind, the whole thread is like a Michael Moore documentary so it fits right in.
Activision Out To Improve Image Being #1 has its downsides. June 21, 2010 by Jim Reilly With its ongoing court battle between Infinity Ward, increased pricing of its map packs, and talk of subscription-based plans for its franchises, Activision hasn't exactly made many friends with gamers over the past year.
In an interview with IGN during E3 last week, COO Thomas Tippl said he recognizes there is a contingent of gamers out there that view the company in a very negative light, and that Activision is aiming to improve its customer relationship.
"Obviously, we stay connected to what's going on in the communities so we're not ignorant that there's a very vocal minority out there that has some very strong feelings," said Tippl. "Whenever you become #1 in any industry, you automatically get a target painted on your back. You've got to be able to live with that."
"There are many things we can probably do better in the way we communicate with the communities so that we don't run the risk that certain things get pulled out of context and blown out of proportion."
Tippl noted that while improving relationships with fans needs to be taken seriously, the company is not trying to lose focus on what's most important: developing and publishing videogames.
"At the end of the day, when you look at 2009 and what people bought, it's Activision games. We were the only publisher that had success in 2009. No one else did. We're focused on producing great products," he added.
"Now, can we do a better job from a PR and community management perspective? I think we can. We are focused on doing that, but you will always have a vocal minority that no matter what you do they're not going to be happy."
EPT
) becoming a huge corporation we see the management shifting from in-house enthusiasts to outside mercenarial professional management. The problem begins at the board of directors, a group of investors whose only concern is how big the difference from the revenue line subtracted from the cost line is. Robert Kotick is a product of the corporate model and an unfortunate one at that. 
