| (Pages: 1, 2, 3) | |
It's good to know that they are turning in to Zynga all on their own. | |
Interviewer:"So Ghostcrawler, what buffs can we expect hunters to bring through their pets to the raid, and how will this affect hunter raid viability?" | |
I think everyone knows who the breadwinner is in this family :) I still don't understand why some people think Kotick runs Bliz. Vivendi wouldn't dare let that man touch their cashcow. | |
I stay loyal to Blizzard, and not Activision. I bet many others thinks this as well, and Blizzard is scared it'll ruin their sales. To think they have games that are 15 year olds that people still play. | |
Holy shit... that makes the Hunter sound totally kickass! | |
It's like an abused spouse trying to cover up their bruises from their friends by lying..... Sad really. | |
Not that this post will make the die hard idiots who think Kotick is "da debil" change their minds, but it's nice to see all the same. It's good to see people already have a second QQ in place since the Kotick conspiracy has failed. Although the Zynga comparison is incredibly weak. Back to the drawing board, kids. | |
I still don't understand why people think Activision run that much at all. Vivendi's the one who's really calling the shots. OP: Yeaaaah....no. I don't buy it. Don't ask me why, I just don't. Activision may not have changed anything, but that doesn't mean Vivendi haven't. Anything and everything to make WoW more obscenely competitive. | |
I've seen a mysterious increase in the amount of bad moves from Blizzard since the merger. I'll trust them for the moment, hopefully they'll restore their glory with Cataclysm. | |
Yeah, as if people will just stop blaming Kotick for everything. Half the replies here already say they don't believe it. Judging by Starcraft II, I'd say they really haven't lost the ability to turn out great games. | |
If Activision hasn't changed anything then that just proves that Blizzard has gradually became a shit company over time. | |
So I guess that means that Blizzard is wholly responsible for the decision to use draconian DRM measures. Starcraft 2 single player requires an internet connection to function. So if you've got a laptop and want to play Starcraft 2 anywhere you like, anywhere you like better have broadband. | |
We'll see patterns where we want to see them. When Blizzard does anything that is considered "bad" by the community, the fault is never with Blizzard itself, it's the influence from Activision, it's Bobby Kotick himself (man, he must be literally the devil, with powers to manipulate time to be able to micromanage so much just to piss gamers off). Still, the reality is that any company will make mistakes, big companies may make mistakes more often, and Blizzard is a really big company now after years of WoW. | |
You don't need to be connected to play it. You just need to be connected once, to activate your installation. After that it's optional, you stay connected to b.net if you want to get achievements and talk to friends, otherwise you can go offline all you want. | |
This makes no sense, the POINT of merging two companies is to combine their best traits, saying that the merge effected neither of them is basically saying "Yeah, we merged because we felt like, there was no reason, we just kind of woke up one day and said: DUDE! Lets do a multimillion dollar merger with Activision!" Do they expect us to buy this shit? | |
I don't see how they can claim nothing has changed, sure they can claim it changed for the better (which would be bullshit) but if absolutely nothing changed, then why the hell would they do the merger in the first place? That's why I don't buy it. | |
Bobby Kotick disagrees: http://www.massively.com/2010/03/31/acti-blizz-restructuring-assigns-new-executive-to-blizzard/
| |
I get what you mean but i'm not so quick to pit the blame on Activision, i'm just saying i couldn't help but be suspicious. From what i saw they pretty much murdered the game in favour of getting more people to buy the expansions. Whoevers fault it is Cataclysm claims to be changing the part of the game they'd initially ruined so i haven't lost hope. It's possible the changes were more of an experiment before they redid everything completly. | |
So what they're saying is that jacking up the ticket price for Blizzcon, charging $40 to stream video from Blizzcon, splitting one game into three full price games, putting Activision's Chief Financial Officer in charge of Blizzard's operations, and revealing our real names to the internet and all it's denizens was all their idea? Good to know... | |
I think Blizzard is pretty much to Activision as Pixar is to Disney. They make so much money with everything they do, Activision lets them get away with pretty much anything. | |
The good thing about Blizzard, is, its making the money, and the goods to still be able to dictate its own terms...I am sure activision dosnt want to lose all that money! | |
Yes, actually. Blizzard are big boys. They make decisions on their own, for good and for bad. The "If it's good it's Blizzard if it's bad it's Activision" mentality is laughable. As long as Big Blue still pulls in over half of Activision's operating profit, Vivendi's hands-off rule is probably still in full force. Which means that yes, when Blizzard does something boneheaded it's Blizzard's fault. | |
So they just happen to pull the activision trick of bumping up the uk prices for starcraft 2 for shits and giggles then? | |
That would lead us to another discussion. The game changed? Of course, it couldn't stay the same for all these years. But "murdered" the game? I strongly disagree. It may not appeal to you anymore, but it appeals to a lot of people. I still think it's a very good game.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't think Blizzard is completely changing directions for Cataclysm. If you think they "ruined" WoW, they will go on "ruining" it in the next expansion (while for many people they improved the game, and will continue to improve). They certainly won't return to the vanilla days anytime soon. | |
That's great news! I must have been swindled by the prolific bad vibes of the user reviews on Amazon. Thanks for the update. | |
You may suspect I'm biased because of my avatar (yes I played a lot of Starcraft), but I'm not a rabid fanboy, and I say this: Starcraft II is very good. | |
They probably think because it's called "Activision-Blizzard", that Activision runs them now. What.
Unless your games cost $100 apiece like back here, I don't see how you have any reason to complain. Also, incoming 10 pages worth of conspiracy theories. | |
If Activision isn't running the show, I bet it isn't through any lack of trying. I mean yeah, WoW brings in hundreds of million each year, but that would just mean that the publisher wants them even more firmly under their thumb. As Bobby Kotick stated, there should be no fun in making games. | |
Blizzard has been in the clear for a while, I'm sure during initial negotiations there was a clause stating specifically: "Bobby Kotick shall stay 1000 miles away from any Blizzard employee on the damn planet and cannot utter a single word to anyone who works for Blizzard even by phone". However, Activision will gladly fuck any other company that comes in its reach after that fateful merger. | |
I do find it somewhat mysterious that the drumbeat for Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 only came out (and came out in rapid succession) not long after the merger. It does seem to coincide with Kotick's delightful comments about exploiting existing properties. It could be a coincidence. It could be that the new games will be worthwhile. But whether there's been an internal pressure to accelerate the sequelization process or not, there's absolutely no grounds for dismissively calling that possibility "laughable". Likewise, while the tendency to equate Activision in general and Kotick in particular with the devil may have gotten out of hand, that's a damn poor reason to overlook the very real comments and actions of Kotick and Activision. This is not a reputation that materialized out of thin air. | |
The problem i had with WoW now is that all they did to make it easier for players was change numbers around. This meant that areas and quests that used to be significant were ignored, and pretty much all of the dungeons that used to be home to some of my best moments weren't being played by anyone due to the faster leveling. With Cataclysm they're overhauling the only section of the game i had a problem with. They're making it easier for players to level up while making the most of what's there, rather than changing numbers around and messing up parts of the game. | |
Vivendi only had a "hands-off" rule because they basically stumbled into the gaming business without much previous experience. They are a multi-national conglomerate with French roots and own lots and lots of companies ranging from movie producing studios, telecommunication companies, TV stations, music record companies and other stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Vivendi Activision fully and deliberately concentrates on "being the biggest game-publisher" in the world and making profit over anything else, and if you think that Bobby initiated a 18 billion $ merger while giving up the majority shares of his company to Vivendi investors to stand aside on the sidelines and not profit from said deal you're either deluded or a fanboy :P | |
I'm not personally complaining i've never understood the appeal of starcraft anyway so i won't bother with 2 anyway i just don't like activisions pricing practices. | |
No matter how many people complain about Activision Blizzard will continue to make money because they own the souls of most of the WoW players along with the die hard Star Craft fans. | |
| (Pages: 1, 2, 3) | |
Extra Punctuation
MovieBob: Intermission
Experienced Points
First Person
Exploding Barrels
Miracle of Sound: Encore
Special Attack
Loading Time
Backchat
Drinking Games
Escape to the Movies
Escapecraft
Escapist News Wrap - Premium
Escapist Podcast
Feed Dump
GinxTV
Jimquisition
LoadingReadyRun
Mahalo
Meatbag and Co
Media Sandwich
Miracle of Sound
No Right Answer
Pro-Gamer Gauntlet
Reviews
Space Janitors
Tales from the Table
The Big Picture
The Escapist Presents
The Retro Show
Trailers
Unskippable
Zero Punctuation
Max Payne 3 Review
Company of Heroes 2
XCOM Enemy Unknown
Black Ops 2
Diablo 3 Review
TERA Review
Firefall Beta Preview
Starhawk Review
Critical Miss
Name Game
Blizzard Promises Activision Hasn't Changed Anything
Blizzard is the same wholesome videogame development studio it's always been, even after becoming part of Activision-Blizzard. No, really.
It may have been said before, but Blizzard has reiterated that the merger of Activision with Vivendi, which resulted in the creation of Activision-Blizzard, did not affect the chilly game developer in any negative way. It's still business as usual over at Blizzard.
Conspiracy theorists may feel that over time, Activision has crept into Blizzard and changed the developer. Perhaps it started by removing staplers from the office, and expanded to a mysterious plan to make every Blizzard game player reveal their real names so that Activision could somehow legally own our souls. Blizzard says that is just not true.
Blizzard Entertainment's VP and executive managing director of internal operations Michael Ryder told MCV: "Since we had our merger with Activision, it hasn't changed anything at Blizzard. We operate in pretty much the same way we already have." Hmm, "pretty much" huh? That sounds like code for "Bobby Kotick runs the entire show from his underground lair" to me.
However, Ryder says that Blizzard's culture is still entirely intact and isn't going anywhere. "For Blizzard, our culture is extremely important," Ryder imparted. "It is actually the basis for how we do what we do. We have a really strong culture that has a number of values that we share with our offices around the world. That culture, those values, binds us together and it defines the way we want to behave."
"Preserving that culture is a key part of our ability to continue to deliver great games. We nurture it, protect it and take care of it as much as we can, because it is a big part of who we are."
If Blizzard were a smaller company, I might think that Activision could have a bigger influence. But when you're bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars per year with no end in sight, I think you gain the right to a little autonomy.
At around two-and-a-half years after the official formation of Activision-Blizzard, it's time to hang up your conspiracy hats folks: Blizzard is probably always going to remain the same company it's always been. When it comes to Activision's studios involved with other properties, say Call of Duty, that may be a different story, so watch your souls Call of Duty players.
Permalink