Activision’s Bobby Kotick hates developers, innovation, cheap games, you

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick has been on fire this week. At the Deutsche Bank Securities Technology Conference in San Francisco he made a number of comments that seem to have been calculated to explode the heads of gamers, developers, and anyone who cares a jot about the industry. In a wide-ranging speech, Kotick - who earned $14m last year - dropped a number of bombs about Activision's future plans, none of which were designed to make anyone happy apart from Activision shareholders.

Essentially, Kotick is in thrall to the almighty dollar to the expense of all else. Thus: "In the last cycle of videogames you spent $50 on a game, played it and took it back to the shop for credit. Today, we'll (charge) $100 for a guitar. You might add a microphone or drums; you might buy two or three expansions packs, different types of music. Over the life of your ownership you'll probably buy around 25 additional song packs in digital downloads. So, what used to be a $50 sale is a $500 sale today."

This echoes a statement Kotick made last year when he explained the company's lack of support for some new games, specifically ones that don't lend themselves to sequels. Activision, Kotick said, has no interest in games that "don't have the potential to be exploited every year on every platform with clear sequel potential and have the potential to become $100 million franchises."

Talking of $100m franchises, Kotick likes the way that World of Warcraft is heading. "The best of all margins - the 25 per cent operating margin business - has the potential as we can see with World of Warcraft to be a 50 per cent operating margin business. What used to be a low 20s return on invested capital business is now growing to a plus 40 per cent return on invested capital business."

And he's not just setting his sights on Guitar Hero and WoW fans. Talking about upcoming and expensive Activision titles such as Modern Warfare 2, Kotick said: "if it was left to me, I would raise the prices even further."

Having fired these encouraging salvos at the gaming community, Kotick then switched his targets to console manufacturers, who he seems intent on putting out of business by "untethering" Activision games from other-party hardware. "I think what the untethered Guitar Hero does is equal the playing field a little more and give you some leverage with first parties when it comes to downloadable content and the business model."

Maybe the choice quotes of the event, though, came when Kotick talked about Activision's developers; you know, the guys who actually make the stuff he gets so rich from. You'd think he'd have a bit of respect for them, right? Oh no, Kotick's goal over the past 10 years has been - you couldn't make this up - "to take all the fun out of making video games." How? By instilling a culture of "scepticism, pessimism, and fear" amongst the company's staff based around the economic depression and an incentive program that rewards "profit and nothing else".

We're having a hard time coming to terms with all this. While we tend to expect mega rich corporate bosses to be at least a bit evil, this flagrant display of gamer hate has left us dumbfounded. Activision is a mammoth company, with some of the biggest-selling franchises in the world under its umbrella, but at the end of the day its profits come from the pockets of gamers who don't want to miss out on some great titles. If any other CEO exhibited as much contempt for his or her customers as Kotick has, their company would surely expect to face negative feedback or even a consumer boycott. But you just know that nothing like that will happen here. Apart from running the negligible risk of a few blogs printing pictures of him with devil horns or a Hitler moustache, Kotick knows that he's invulnerable. The gaming "community" just doesn't have the will or the organisation to, say, boycott Modern Warfare 2, and that - even more than Kotick's comments - makes us truly sad.

Source: http://www.geeks.co.uk/7282-activision%E2%80%99s-bobby-kotick-hates-developers-innovation-cheap-games-you

Thoughts?

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't these all really old quotes?
Also, he's Bobby Fuckin' Kotick. He can say whatever he wants and people will still buy Activision's games.

We all know that he is the Anti-Christ. We must stop talking and start acting. Let's go stick a flamethrower up his big fat arse.

It is old stuff, overall but not off those quotes were spoken off unless you looked deeper...I have to say though, I have flat out stopped buying Activision titles because I don't like the direction the company has been steered.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of their developers jump ship by the end of 2010 if he keeps up this mentality.

darkfire613:
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't these all really old quotes?

Probably i saw this on a different forum i did a quik search and didn't find anything.

darkfire613:
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't these all really old quotes?
Also, he's Bobby Fuckin' Kotick. He can say whatever he wants and people will still buy Activision's games.

Eventually they will stop. You can only crap on people so long before they are not going to wade through it anymore. Eventually they will just spend their money on more cost effective alternatives that other companies will love to step up to the plate with.

And this is why i dont plan on buying any of the games he mentioned

So the hate has spread to here now huh?

Not surprised, Bobby Kotik is a twat. He's notin the game industry to make good games, he's in it to exploit all us poor gamers because he knows that he can make the same game every year with slightly better graphics and increasingly trashy emotional undertones and you people will just lap it up.

I hope no-one buys Modern Warfare 2. I know I certainly won't.

Honestly Activision has been trying their best to screw gamers of all platforms the best they can lately. They've stopped doing things for the "Community" for years now. It just sucks that they're dragging Blizzard down with them, here's a somewhat overworked post of stuff they did to line their pockets during that time period:

  • Activision had just merged with Blizzard and it was decided, that StarCraft isn't going to make enough money as one normal game that's great, so they have to pad it and sell it as 3 full-price titles which are mediocre, of which you will need all to properly play the multiplayer part competitively.
    http://kotaku.com/5061980/starcraft-ii-single-player-is-a-trilogy
  • Soon after they've been dropping games like Brütal Legend and Ghostbusters from their Portfolio, because they seemingly can't be exploited on an annual basis for enough $$$.
    http://www.joystiq.com/2008/11/06/activision-blizzard-ceo-kotick-vivendi-franchises-lacked-poten/

    Kotick (Activision's CEO) says:

    With respect to the franchises that don't have the potential to be exploited every year across every platform with clear sequel potential that can meet our objectives of over time becoming $100 million plus franchises, that's a strategy that has worked very well for us.

    image

  • "Blizzard" decides to drop the LAN playability mode on both Diablo 3 and StarCraft 2, so everyone that wants to play their game HAS to have a Battle.Net Account, an Unique Key (no longer playing with your mates or family on a private LAN with one copy of the game, but everyone needs his own and has to be logged in while doing so).
    http://starcraft.incgamers.com/blog/comments/no-lan-in-starcraft-ii-confirmed/
    They also decided to turn the new Battle.Net 2.0 into a Privacy and Modder's Nightmare

    Battle.Net says:

    In order to provide the Battle.net Service, Blizzard must be entitled to access, monitor and/or review text chat, including private, or "whisper" chat, in the event of complaints from other users or violations of the law. By clicking the check box below, you agree that Blizzard (or one of Blizzard's affiliates) has the right to monitor and review personal messages you send or receive on the Battle.net Service, or through any game that is playable through the Battle.net Service, to investigate potential violations of the law, the Battle.net Terms of Use, or the Terms of Use agreement specific to any game playable on the Battle.net Service. Blizzard will not use the information for any reason other than pursuing such violations.

    11.4 User Content. "Content" means any communications, images, sounds, and all the material and information that you upload or transmit through a Game client or the Service, or that other users upload or transmit, including without limitation any chat text. You hereby grant Blizzard a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, paid-up, non-exclusive, license, including the right to sublicense to third parties, and right to reproduce, fix, adapt, modify, translate, reformat, create derivative works from, manufacture, introduce into circulation, publish, distribute, sell, license, sublicense, transfer, rent, lease, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, or provide access to electronically, broadcast, communicate to the public by telecommunication, display, perform, enter into computer memory, and use and practice such Content as well as all modified and derivative works thereof. To the extent permitted by applicable laws, you hereby waive any moral rights you may have in any Content.

  • After noticing that Brütal Legend might be a bigger Deal than they previously anticipated, as it had won E3 awards and was on the front wall of the entrance building, Activision decided to sue Double Fine to try and stop releasing the game altogether:
    http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/59034

    Activision is suing Double Fine Productions to stop the release of Brutal Legend, The Associated Press reported, claiming it still holds a valid contract to publish the heavy metal fantasy and has invested roughly $15 million in it.

    The dispute stems from Brutal Legend's troubled history. Activision declined to acquire the game's publishing rights from Vivendi when the two merged in July 2008. EA picked up Brutal Legend that December, and planned to release it on October 13 this year.

    Reports emerged in February that Activision believed it was still in negotiations over Brutal Legend when EA picked up the title, and was considering suing. An EA representative responded that it would "be like a husband abandoning his family and then suing after his wife meets a better looking guy."

    EA and Double Fine Productions have yet to respond, but we'll keep you updated.

  • Blizzard decides that raising the entry prices for its Blizzcon 2009 from 100$ to 125$ would be a good idea, also for the first time ever, one can watch a Stream of the Event Live over DirecTV or the Internet, yours only and exclusively for 39.95$
    http://blizzcon.rayv.com/Pages/en/faq.aspx
    Can't have free coverage like say during the biggest gaming events like the E3 or Tokyo Game Show...
  • Soon after raising prices for games that require Peripherals and for example Modern Warfare 2 by 10-20%, Kotick says if it were up to him he would "raise the prices" of games even further:
    http://www.strategyinformer.com/news/5100/kotick-would-raise-the-prices-of-games-further-if-it-was-left-to-him

    "And then on the second question, Tony, on the pricing, we've had for all of our launch titles in the back half of this year, some of which contain peripherals, as you point out, very strong retailer acceptance and support for all parts of our plan, including our merchandising plans, our marketing programs, and our price points," replied Mike Griffith to an analysts question.

    Bobby Kotick chips in: "And Tony, you know if it was left to me, I would raise the prices even further." It was then that the other executives chuckled, before pausing and moving on to another question during the Q2 earnings call Q&A.

  • Activision continues to sell their retarded Guitar Hero crap, breaking the barrier of 10 releases in 3 years and still making money with it.
  • On a finances conference in San Francisco Kotick (Activision's CEO again) literally says it was his GOAL "To Take All the Fun Out of Making Video Games":
    http://www.industrygamers.com/news/bobby-koticks-goal-to-take-all-the-fun-out-of-making-video-games/

    Kotick says:

    Kotick noted that in the past he changed the employee incentive program so that it "really rewards profit and nothing else." He continued, "You have studio heads who five years ago didn't know the difference between a balance sheet and a bed sheet who are now arguing allocations in our CFO's office pretty regularly. ... We have a real culture of thrift. The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games."

    Yes, he just said that.

    Ultimately, Kotick doesn't want his employees to take anything for granted. They should always be aware of "skepticism, pessimism, and fear" in the midst of the global economic downturn. "We are very good at keeping people focused on the deep depression," he said.

    Cheery fellow.

  • Infinity Ward decides to drop Modding Support and Custom Dedicated Servers for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, so they can control every Aspect of their game just like on consoles and demand money for such "Premium Content" as 1-2 New maps in DLCs while practically eliminating competitive play in leagues and for clans completely.
    http://kotaku.com/5384057/new-modern-warfare-matchmaking-service-will-definitely-reshape-pc-community
    It's like they took everything good this Developer said in an Interview about the PC version of Call of Duty 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMfTR8PBrsE and turned it around 180°, not only that but after that they tried to make everyone actually believe less features is better.

    Just one more step of many in destroying video gaming and penetrating the customers up their ...

Activision has the power to destroy PC gaming and tries as best it can, or even worse turning it into Console gaming, I basically stopped buying any of their games for the time being...

Dexter111:
*snip*

Not got time to read all that as I've got an imminent lecture to go to, but a glance over it showed you put some stuff about Blizzard in there. For the umpteenth time folks: Blizzard and Activision are autonomous of one another. Kotick has no say in what goes on within Blizzard's four walls.

Amnestic:

Dexter111:
*snip*

Not got time to read all that as I've got an imminent lecture to go to, but a glance over it showed you put some stuff about Blizzard in there. For the umpteenth time folks: Blizzard and Activision are autonomous of one another. Kotick has no say in what goes on within Blizzard's four walls.

Yes of course, and Santa Claus also exists of course and is bringing you presents by pushing himself down your chimney...
Game Companies just change their principles and way of doing business from one day to the next, but again Kotick put it the best:

"You have studio heads who five years ago didn't know the difference between a balance sheet and a bed sheet who are now arguing allocations in our CFO's office pretty regularly. ... We have a real culture of thrift.

Meaning "studio heads" didn't really care about finances before and actually MADE GOOD VIDEO GAMES, now it seems to be the other way around.

Dexter111:

Amnestic:

Dexter111:
*snip*

Not got time to read all that as I've got an imminent lecture to go to, but a glance over it showed you put some stuff about Blizzard in there. For the umpteenth time folks: Blizzard and Activision are autonomous of one another. Kotick has no say in what goes on within Blizzard's four walls.

Yes of course, and Santa Claus also exists of course and is bringing you presents by pushing himself down your chimney...
Game Companies just change their principles and way of doing business from one day to the next, but again Kotick put it the best:

"You have studio heads who five years ago didn't know the difference between a balance sheet and a bed sheet who are now arguing allocations in our CFO's office pretty regularly. ... We have a real culture of thrift.

Meaning "studio heads" didn't really care about finances before and actually MADE GOOD VIDEO GAMES, now it seems to be the other way around.

Right it is all thier fault and we shoulder none of the blame. We never demand anything from them. We would never turn our noses up at a game that had weak graphics or less than spectacular production values. We would never support reviewers who give a game less than an average score because of the length. Or because the world wasn't big enough. And we would never steal from them. Oh no not us.

none of which were designed to make anyone happy apart from Activision shareholders.

Sounds like Kotick's doing a great job since, y'know, those are the people who decide whether he gets to keep that $14M a year gig...and if you don't like it, call a stockbroker and buy ATVI.

That's what happens when you put an economist in an artistic world. They don't mix well.

Dexter111:
*snip*

image

Can you point the name of Activision in this cover? Did you also went to the future and saw that the 3 Starcraft games are mediocre? And that the 3 parts are actually going to cost full price? And did you read any recap of Blizzcon and watched the new mod tools for Blizzard games? And that Blizzard is going to help modders by making some mods payable, so the mod teams can make some profit out of them? And that those agreements you pointed are probably the same to the Steam ones or any other type of chat programs?(You are aware that they don't have a team working 24/7 to monitor your conversations.)

The only thing that you managed to link Activision greed to Blizzard was the raise of the ticket prizes, and paying for the stream.

The only way I'm buying ANY Activision game is second-hand, since I know Kotick hates that.

well at least he's upfront with the fact hes a greedy power hungry prick with no consideration for the consumers or his own staff.

three seperate products to buy for starcraft 2 if you want each single player campaign? hmm here in Australia i bet they will be around $50 aud each instead of the usual full price single $99. so they end up making 1/3 more on it.

i may of liked modern warfare, but i really have no interest to speak of in MW2 or starcraft 2 thank goodness.

You know, I once made a thread calling EA evil. This was because of several things, but mostly dissolving Westwood studios. However I retract this statement, because they made Command and Conquer 3 themselves, and its a damn good game. As a whole, EA actually works to make their games better, instead of releasing the same game every year. Yes they do this with sports games, but they actually put a lot of work into them.

Also the fact that the C&C 4 is PC exclusive makes me happy.

Microsoft I would say likes to nickel and dime us, but they aren't beating a dead horse. Halo is still breathing. Also, A lot of games released under their titles Microsoft games and Games for Windows are pretty damn good.

As for Blizzard, they are working to make it worth your while with starcraft. It's not one game divided into 3 persay. They are working to expand all 3 sections, which would be a hell of a long game if it was released in 1. Also, I own every damn product they have ever made. Including the lost vikings.

In the end, competition has its place. There will always be companies going against Activision. Innovation and Creativity have always been behind a popular series, because if you don't distinguish yourself, you get lost in the crowd. Eat it, Bobby.

nikki191:
well at least he's upfront with the fact hes a greedy power hungry prick with no consideration for the consumers or his own staff.

three seperate products to buy for starcraft 2 if you want each single player campaign? hmm here in Australia i bet they will be around $50 aud each instead of the usual full price single $99. so they end up making 1/3 more on it.

i may of liked modern warfare, but i really have no interest to speak of in MW2 or starcraft 2 thank goodness.

Once again: Blizzard =/= Activision. Furthermore, those Single Player campaigns are each as long as the entirety of Starcraft 1, which means you're paying full price for a full length game.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck and has biological makeup of a duck...it's probably a duck.

Ah, the Dark Lord Bobby Kotick. First he'll take our money, next our women, and finally our SOULS!

oliveira8:

Dexter111:
*snip*

Can you point the name of Activision in this cover? Did you also went to the future and saw that the 3 Starcraft games are mediocre? And that the 3 parts are actually going to cost full price? And did you read any recap of Blizzcon and watched the new mod tools for Blizzard games? And that Blizzard is going to help modders by making some mods payable, so the mod teams can make some profit out of them? And that those agreements you pointed are probably the same to the Steam ones or any other type of chat programs?(You are aware that they don't have a team working 24/7 to monitor your conversations.)

The only thing that you managed to link Activision greed to Blizzard was the raise of the ticket prizes, and paying for the stream.

You have to be COMPLETELY ignorant to think that Blizzard will be untouched by what Kotick wants out of the company. Open your eyes before you kill yourself when Starcraft II isn't that great.

Just wait and see... watch as Blizzard dissolves into what Activision wants them to be. Pump out game after game and charge you every step of the way!

I think he masturbates over money.

*Listens*

*fapfapfap*

auronvi:

oliveira8:

Dexter111:
*snip*

Can you point the name of Activision in this cover? Did you also went to the future and saw that the 3 Starcraft games are mediocre? And that the 3 parts are actually going to cost full price? And did you read any recap of Blizzcon and watched the new mod tools for Blizzard games? And that Blizzard is going to help modders by making some mods payable, so the mod teams can make some profit out of them? And that those agreements you pointed are probably the same to the Steam ones or any other type of chat programs?(You are aware that they don't have a team working 24/7 to monitor your conversations.)

The only thing that you managed to link Activision greed to Blizzard was the raise of the ticket prizes, and paying for the stream.

You have to be COMPLETELY ignorant to think that Blizzard will be untouched by what Kotick wants out of the company. Open your eyes before you kill yourself when Starcraft II isn't that great.

Just wait and see... watch as Blizzard dissolves into what Activision wants them to be. Pump out game after game and charge you every step of the way!

Blizzard isn't owned by Activision. Activision isn't owned by Blizzard. They're both owned by Vivendi. There will be no 'dissolving' because Blizzard as a studio brings in so much on its own and continues to do so without any influence whatsoever from Activision.

'Dissolving' Blizzard into Activision. would likely lose Vivendi a large amount of core consumers who have a lot of brand-faith with Blizzard titles. Pushing Blizzard and Activision closer together is a recipe for failure.

I can believe that he'd think this. I can't believe he'd say it.

auronvi:

oliveira8:

Dexter111:
*snip*

Can you point the name of Activision in this cover? Did you also went to the future and saw that the 3 Starcraft games are mediocre? And that the 3 parts are actually going to cost full price? And did you read any recap of Blizzcon and watched the new mod tools for Blizzard games? And that Blizzard is going to help modders by making some mods payable, so the mod teams can make some profit out of them? And that those agreements you pointed are probably the same to the Steam ones or any other type of chat programs?(You are aware that they don't have a team working 24/7 to monitor your conversations.)

The only thing that you managed to link Activision greed to Blizzard was the raise of the ticket prizes, and paying for the stream.

You have to be COMPLETELY ignorant to think that Blizzard will be untouched by what Kotick wants out of the company. Open your eyes before you kill yourself when Starcraft II isn't that great.

Just wait and see... watch as Blizzard dissolves into what Activision wants them to be. Pump out game after game and charge you every step of the way!

I wont kill myself. But I'm also very well aware that Activision doesn't own Blizzard, and that Blizzard has it's own CEO. Morhaime is still in charge of Blizzard. And both Morhaime and Kotick answer to Vivendi who is the parent company of Blizzard and Activision.

ACTIVISION DID NOT AQUIRE BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT. They became partners once Vivendi merged with Activision.

Vivendi the people who owns Blizzard.
On the other hand IW is OWNED by Activision.
When the merge happened Vivendi got the majority of the stock hold, meaning they IN CHARGE. As Vivendi remains the majority, Blizzard owned by Vivendi kept being a seperate studio. Activision remains Activision with it's satelite studios.(Like IW WHICH IS OWNED BY ACTIVISION)

Here the key people of the company named Activision Blizzard, Inc:

Jean-Bernard Levy, Chairman
Robert Kotick, President and CEO of Activision
Michael Morhaime, President and CEO of Blizzard Entertainment

The name Activision Blizzard, Inc came up because they both are very well knowed betewen the video game media and plublic. More than the Vivendi. When the merge happened it was a no brainer to call that section of Vivendi Activision Blizzard, Inc.

Go to ANY site of Blizzard(WoW forums, Battlenet, Blizzstore.) you won't see the name of Activision. Why? Cause they a separate part of the company. One with it's own CEO and business schemes.

Get it?

Kotick and Morhaime are two different people. Activision and Blizzard are two different studios who belong to a bigger company. Each works independent of the other.

The great thing is that Activision dont make any games that really interest me, so they can disapear off the face of the earth for all I care. I dont want them too obviously but i dont even think I have any gmes by the smaller companies they own.

darkfire613:
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't these all really old quotes?
Also, he's Bobby Fuckin' Kotick. He can say whatever he wants and people will still buy Activision's games.

I'm not. I haven't bought a single one in the last ten years and I'm going to continue not buying them.

Amnestic:

auronvi:

oliveira8:

Dexter111:
*snip*

Can you point the name of Activision in this cover? Did you also went to the future and saw that the 3 Starcraft games are mediocre? And that the 3 parts are actually going to cost full price? And did you read any recap of Blizzcon and watched the new mod tools for Blizzard games? And that Blizzard is going to help modders by making some mods payable, so the mod teams can make some profit out of them? And that those agreements you pointed are probably the same to the Steam ones or any other type of chat programs?(You are aware that they don't have a team working 24/7 to monitor your conversations.)

The only thing that you managed to link Activision greed to Blizzard was the raise of the ticket prizes, and paying for the stream.

You have to be COMPLETELY ignorant to think that Blizzard will be untouched by what Kotick wants out of the company. Open your eyes before you kill yourself when Starcraft II isn't that great.

Just wait and see... watch as Blizzard dissolves into what Activision wants them to be. Pump out game after game and charge you every step of the way!

Blizzard isn't owned by Activision. Activision isn't owned by Blizzard. They're both owned by Vivendi. There will be no 'dissolving' because Blizzard as a studio brings in so much on its own and continues to do so without any influence whatsoever from Activision.

'Dissolving' Blizzard into Activision. would likely lose Vivendi a large amount of core consumers who have a lot of brand-faith with Blizzard titles. Pushing Blizzard and Activision closer together is a recipe for failure.

oliveira8:

auronvi:

oliveira8:

Dexter111:
*snip*

Can you point the name of Activision in this cover? Did you also went to the future and saw that the 3 Starcraft games are mediocre? And that the 3 parts are actually going to cost full price? And did you read any recap of Blizzcon and watched the new mod tools for Blizzard games? And that Blizzard is going to help modders by making some mods payable, so the mod teams can make some profit out of them? And that those agreements you pointed are probably the same to the Steam ones or any other type of chat programs?(You are aware that they don't have a team working 24/7 to monitor your conversations.)

The only thing that you managed to link Activision greed to Blizzard was the raise of the ticket prizes, and paying for the stream.

You have to be COMPLETELY ignorant to think that Blizzard will be untouched by what Kotick wants out of the company. Open your eyes before you kill yourself when Starcraft II isn't that great.

Just wait and see... watch as Blizzard dissolves into what Activision wants them to be. Pump out game after game and charge you every step of the way!

I wont kill myself. But I'm also very well aware that Activision doesn't own Blizzard, and that Blizzard has it's own CEO. Morhaime is still in charge of Blizzard. And both Morhaime and Kotick answer to Vivendi who is the parent company of Blizzard and Activision.

ACTIVISION DID NOT AQUIRE BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT. They became partners once Vivendi merged with Activision.

Vivendi the people who owns Blizzard.
On the other hand IW is OWNED by Activision.
When the merge happened Vivendi got the majority of the stock hold, meaning they IN CHARGE. As Vivendi remains the majority, Blizzard owned by Vivendi kept being a seperate studio. Activision remains Activision with it's satelite studios.(Like IW WHICH IS OWNED BY ACTIVISION)

Here the key people of the company named Activision Blizzard, Inc:

Jean-Bernard Levy, Chairman
Robert Kotick, President and CEO of Activision
Michael Morhaime, President and CEO of Blizzard Entertainment

The name Activision Blizzard, Inc came up because they both are very well knowed betewen the video game media and plublic. More than the Vivendi. When the merge happened it was a no brainer to call that section of Vivendi Activision Blizzard, Inc.

Go to ANY site of Blizzard(WoW forums, Battlenet, Blizzstore.) you won't see the name of Activision. Why? Cause they a separate part of the company. One with it's own CEO and business schemes.

Get it?

Kotick and Morhaime are two different people. Activision and Blizzard are two different studios who belong to a bigger company. Each works independent of the other.

I have misunderstood what transpired there then. Thanks for explaining. Then I guess Blizzard will remain untouched.

Kotick should be replaced though. Gamers start buying stock and then write to the company saying you want him gone! lol

Random argument man:
That's what happens when you put an economist in an artistic world. They don't mix well.

The entertainment industry as a whole is an oxymoron. And unfortunately it's the industry side that dictates the entertainment.

The people who make Kotick rich (the mass consumer base), don't tend to read stuff like this. If everyone who bought an Activision Game was forced to read Kotick's Rhetoric, they'd probably think twice.

Let's remember though - these CEOs are all batfuckingshit insane. There isn't a Game Company CEO that isn't crazy as a loon. The Big Ones - EA, Activision and Nintendo.. they're all crazy. Standing that high on gigantic piles of money, they are so high in the sky and the air is so scarce up there, that they are crazy.

They don't live in the same world as everyone else - especially their customers.

oliveira8:
Can you point the name of Activision in this cover? Did you also went to the future and saw that the 3 Starcraft games are mediocre? And that the 3 parts are actually going to cost full price? And did you read any recap of Blizzcon and watched the new mod tools for Blizzard games? And that Blizzard is going to help modders by making some mods payable, so the mod teams can make some profit out of them? And that those agreements you pointed are probably the same to the Steam ones or any other type of chat programs?(You are aware that they don't have a team working 24/7 to monitor your conversations.)

The only thing that you managed to link Activision greed to Blizzard was the raise of the ticket prizes, and paying for the stream.

I don't really care if they have one brand or the other on the gaming box, they're using the same marketing techniques and are basically just trying to prioritize for profitability. You'd have to be blind to not see that the company has changed in the last couple of years (two of the main "bumps" being the Release of "World of Warcraft" and the second being the merger and creation of "Activision Blizzard", even coming with a new logo)
image
They didn't dissolve Blizzard (other subsidiaries weren't as lucky though btw. like SIERRA) and they'd be retarded if they did but they've been merged, there is no company called "Blizzard" anymore (although they retained their corporate structure as a sub-division as you said), it's "Activision Blizzard" and they share a corporate structure and philosophy. Saying that one wouldn't be influenced by the other is borderline retarded. (It's kind of similar to Bioware being bought by EA, while the studio was independant before and has been integrated into EA with most of the staff being the same ultimately the "big decisions" come from EA and if they start being unprofitable that'll have consequences)

René Penisson, formerly a member of the Management Board of Vivendi and Chairman of Vivendi Games, would serve as Chairman of Activision Blizzard. Bobby Kotick, once head of Activision, was announced to become President and CEO of Activision Blizzard.

Why I'm saying that it's probably going to be mediocre is firstly because I don't think you can pad a campaign from the usual 10 missions with to 30 playing the same race/faction, units and buildings and keeping it interesting. It's like the "Heroes of Might & Magic 5" Campaign, that had 6 factions with their individual campaigns, but I got bored with the game playing only the first one, which already was several dozen hours and played really slow and same-ish.
The beginning of the second felt the same so I gave up on that.

Secondly I've been hearing things from the press, for example a gaming magazine that I usually buy had a guy over to Blizzard and he was allowed to play through the first couple of missions of the game, paraphrasing him from a video on the DVD he says something along the lines of:

"They made a lot of promises, StarCraft II as Trilogy and all, and yeah now I've played the SinglePlayer of StarCraft II and I'm not really thaaaaat amazed. I'd have expected more. It's a Blizzard title, it was fun but they now showed off the first missions and they didn't exactly blow me away completely. You have a linear campaign now and can choose what you're going to do next but the missions partially were very short, partly scripted throughout and yeah... it wasn't exactly the revelation.
They announced a star-chart, but that wasn't there (yet). You had 2-3 planets you could choose from and you played through them.
Blizzard made it so that a lot of the missions feel like mini-games, (games inside the game). This mission shows one of a lava planet where you have to gather crystals and the special thing in this mission is that the lava ascends and you have to get your gatherings up on the platform. It's a nice idea but that what I meant with "it didn't blow me away". You do it several dozen times till you got your crystals and other than that there's not much going on in the mission. But I have to say for the sake of fairness those were the first 5 of 30 missions so it might get more interesting later on. Blizzard might not use all their powder on the first presentation. [...] They have In-game cut scenes that look totally awesome and you are on Raynor's starship, can click a star-chart, can talk to NPCs, you can visit the bar if you feel like it between the missions. You don't have to do it but you can do it. And there they also showed a few new features like hiring mercenaries. Those are a little stronger units but apparently Blizzard didn't find out how to integrate it into the game yet, because we while playing it thought the units were pretty useless. The research in this case, you can place a research order and then you have to collect 3 alien-crystals or something like that in the next mission. Not exactly thrilling." [...]Can only say hopefully it gets more exciting while you play it, because at start, it looks pretty cool, it has a nice story, it doesn't do anything wrong but it didn't exactly blow me away.

If the "oh so independent" gaming press is already being critical about it I think that I can xD

And payable mods... now that sounds like an awesome feature... NOT lol. I wonder what Blizzard is going to get out of that deal seeing as from the new Battle.Net 2.0 charter they seemingly own everything that's being transferred through the Battle.Net and can modify it and sell it however they want with the original creator losing "any moral rights they may have in any Content."

auronvi:

I have misunderstood what transpired there then. Thanks for explaining. Then I guess Blizzard will remain untouched.

Kotick should be replaced though. Gamers start buying stock and then write to the company saying you want him gone! lol

But one thing should be said.

Blizzard and Activision develop their games without interfering with one another. They have their own development cycle, their own teams and their own goals.

I REALLY REALLY doubt that the idea to break SC2 into 3 games was influenced by Activision.

Here from the SC2 FAQ page about the trilogy.

The multiplayer will still work if you bought all three games or not. If you want only MP you can just buy SC2 Part 1. There's still no pricing detail to the 3 games. Theres not enough details to shout "I SMELL ACTIVISION!!!!" with reason.

The same goes for Battle.Net 2.0. It was known for quite awhile BEFORE the merge that Blizzard wanted to update is old system. Well they doing it now.
I still rather have Blizzard join with valve and put their games into Steam. Or even Stardock. So the games could keep LAN. But they didn't. Sucks major ass and I'm still quite angry at it.
Is it Activision greedy fat fingers again? Doubt it. There was plans to revamp the old system, what better time to show it to world with SC2 and D3. Maybe B.Net 2.0 will work fine and dandy, when the online kicks up. Time will tell. But it's not Activision that made Blizzard drop LAN.

NOW! Let's take a look at a game that has made plenty of controvesy in the realms of the PC.
Modern Warfare 2.
Now MW2 shows Activision medling.(At least for the PC)

No prestige edition for PC.
Price hike for PC and UK costumers.
The exclusion of mods and dedicated servers.
A service that may or not work.

(I'm probably wrong here but I'm not sure) IW is going to launch it's own version of Battle.net the IW.Net (or whatever it's called) to handle the servers(etc), and they just revealed MAJOR cuts to what makes a PC game a PC game, 1 month away from release and haven't showcased the power of their network. They using something that hasn't been tested or introduced to a broader public. The game is going to come out and for alot of people they just got the axe, cause someone wants to make more money.
This is Activision at work. They own IW and in some form they tell them what to do.
And the price hikes is an experience to see if the Market reacts well to price hikes. What better way to test the market then use a very anticipated game. A plan that can't go wrong. I really hope that MW2 Pc version fails epicly. Maybe we can cut this mumbo jumbo of raising prices and removing mods so you can promote payed map packs.

Activision doesn't boss around Blizzard, when it comes to Blizzard development and how they want to distribute their games. BUT. If Kotick business plan is vastly superior to Blizzard, I believe nothing stops Vivendi to force Blizzard to change something.

It could happen. Then again Vivendi is French...they will surrender if Blizzard gives them the death glare.(French jokes never get old.)

Dexter111:
*snip*

Theres a company named Blizzard, with it's own CEO and direction. Read my first answer to auronvi.

Also wtf you mean by the bump being WoW. They weren't even sure the game was going to sell like hot cupcakes. It was a gamble they took in 2004 and it worked for them. What has that have to do with Activision?
The game makes seas of money why are they going to leave that sea?

And the logo exists but not in anything made by Blizzard. It's not in the box, it's not in the websites, it's not in the Blizzstore it's not in the battle.net.

Blizzard Entertainment exists, and has its is own publisher.

Again point Activision Blizzard in this cover:

or this one:

Activision Blizzard only exists when they need to count money. The games come from Activision and Blizzard departments. Both independent of one another.

If they were trully the same company, the name Activision Blizzard would be all over the covers of the latest games. But it's not.

can't-think:

Thoughts?

Just don't buy any Activision games.

Jeez. If people do buy these games then they deserve being ripped off like this - a fool and his money are soon parted.

oliveira8:
The multiplayer will still work if you bought all three games or not. If you want only MP you can just buy SC2 Part 1. There's still no pricing detail to the 3 games. Theres not enough details to shout "I SMELL ACTIVISION!!!!" with reason

That's another one of those things that's being repeated because of some vague statement they made shortly after the reveal. The truth is though, that you can play Multiplayer with all 3 Factions using "Wings of Liberty" the same way you could play StarCraft or WarCraft 3 MP, both "Heart of the Swarm" and "Legacy of the Void" introduce new units, buildings and abilities (as StarCraft: BroodWar and Warcraft 3: TFT) did. To play the "complete" game (and play competitively or in Leagues) you will have to buy all 3 games (and everyone will have to have it's own copy e.g. an Unique key for every game to play together even in LAN mode because connection to Battle.Net is mandatory):

http://starcraft.incgamers.com/blog/comments/150-to-play-full-starcraft-ii/

It seems the decision to divide SC2 into three was discussed last BlizzCon, and got finalised sometime around new year, and now announced at BlizzCon. It will work more or less exactly like expansions, as two were already planned for SC anyway. This means that you will need to have all three boxes if you want to play with other people that have all three, or you can play in "Wings of Liberty Mode", which only requires that original box. Yes, this does mean that you will have to pay whatever price it would total to (they have not discussed that yet, ofc), in order to play.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3170722

Multiplayer matches with all three races will be available from the very first StarCraft 2 release. Though multiplayer matches will certainly be available from the Terran campaign, you can probably expect to see some new units and building types coming when the Zerg and Protoss campaigns release. The official StarCraft II FAQ notes that future releases "will add new content to each race for use in multiplayer matches. This could include additions such as new units, abilities, and structures, along with new maps and Battle.net updates." The company is working on a lobby system to split users who have the expansion features from those who don't. This is sure to be made more complex by the presence of two expansions and the company being unsure (so far) of whether the first game will serve as a necessary building block for the other two.

Regarding the pricing, sure they haven't announced it yet but based on what I've seen and the fact that they release all 3 as "separate games" probably 6-12 months apart from each other with a "Full title campaign" AND that they haven't announced pricing yet and won't till the first title is out, it's really safe to assume something...

Activision Blizzard only exists when they need to count money. The games come from Activision and Blizzard departments. Both independent of one another.
If they were trully the same company, the name Activision Blizzard would be all over the covers of the latest games. But it's not.

Why would it lol? Of course they're both companies with their own internal structures, as much as Radical Entertainment is (Prototype), or Neversoft (Guitar Hero 5), which are both owned by Activision Blizzard with the Parent company Activision. I didn't say that Blizzard or Activision don't have their own internal structure but that they're owned by Activision Blizzard Inc. (Holding Company) with a Board of Directors: http://www.activisionblizzard.com/corp/ml/corpGovern/boardOfDirectors.html and company policies and philosophy.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked