Page 13 of 21 FirstFirst ...
3
11
12
13
14
15
... LastLast
  1. #241
    The Patient Pakmanisgod's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    Kotick can fire anyone at Blizzard at any time. How much more control does he need?
    I work in a steel shop that fabricates and builds farm equipment. Our CEO can fire anyone at any time. We act independantly to that however and he has people that manage the various plants and has little to do with any of the actual process.

  2. #242
    Quote Originally Posted by Darsithis View Post
    Activision no doubt has specific goals for Blizzard, like "make more money!" or "increase subscriber base". But what I'm fighting against in this thread are people who actually think Activision tells Blizzard how to tune classes. That's why I keep saying NO, Activision is not responsible for WoW's current state, Blizzard is.

    Is there a level of control? Obviously. Is it at the level that some people in this thread like to claim? No.
    Nah, nobody is claiming that, you're just putting up windmills to charge at.
    They don't need to design the classes, they just need to say "look guys there's untapped potential in this and that market, do what's needed to appeal to it".
    I'll refer you to Bobby - "take the fun out of making games" - Kotick.

    Quote Originally Posted by BobbyKotick
    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."
    Edit: CFO = Chief Financial Officer, ie he put the beancounters in charge of the creative department, so much for the hands off approach.
    Last edited by Roadblock; 2016-04-14 at 03:34 PM.

  3. #243
    Honorary PvM "Mod" Darsithis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    51,235
    Quote Originally Posted by Medieval Man View Post
    Wow. So there we have it. So why is it so unthinkable that Activision caused things like the cash shop, which in turn led to the game getting worse because now rewards instead of being earned ingame are available for $$$$
    They didn't.

    Activision merged with Vivdendi, which already owned Blizzard, at the end of 2007. Yes, owned. Blizzard was not on its own in 2007 nor was it on its own when they started World of Warcraft. They have no control over what Blizzard does. Having goals != having control. Blizzard is autonomous and makes its own decisions.

  4. #244
    Honorary PvM "Mod" Darsithis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    51,235
    Quote Originally Posted by Roadblock View Post
    Nah, nobody is claiming that, you're just putting up windmills to charge at.
    They don't need to design the classes, they just need to say "look guys there's untapped potential in this and that market, do what's needed to appeal to it".
    I'll refer you to Bobby - "take the fun out of making games" - Kotick.
    Actually there was a poster earlier in the thread who said that Yes, Activision controls Blizzard because look at how hard tuning was in 3.0.2 vs 2.4.

  5. #245
    Quote Originally Posted by McNeil View Post
    Thats a clever way to get around 10 characters O.o

    Activision ruining Blizzard reminds me of the days EA ruined Westwood
    Yeah it's great isn't it? The forum mods circumventing the very rules they put in place.

  6. #246
    Honorary PvM "Mod" Darsithis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    51,235
    Quote Originally Posted by Skalm View Post
    Yeah it's great isn't it? The forum mods circumventing the very rules they put in place.
    If you're referring to the meme, it's not appropriate for a mod to infract posts targeted specifically at them. I'll rely on my other team members to take care of things when they can.

  7. #247
    Legendary! Deficineiron's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Forum Logic
    Posts
    6,576
    Quote Originally Posted by Darsithis View Post
    They didn't.

    Activision merged with Vivdendi, which already owned Blizzard, at the end of 2007. Yes, owned. Blizzard was not on its own in 2007 nor was it on its own when they started World of Warcraft. They have no control over what Blizzard does. Having goals != having control. Blizzard is autonomous and makes its own decisions.
    Are you seriously arguing that parent company change isn't a major corporate event that can have a significant effect on broader top-level decisions? What you are describing would be a massive liability for Activision-Blizzard. Are you intentionally talking about the activision subdivision rather than the parent company?
    Authors I have enjoyed enough to mention here: JRR Tolkein, Poul Anderson,Jack Vance, Gene Wolfe, Glen Cook, Brian Stableford, MAR Barker, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, WM Hodgson, Fredrick Brown, Robert SheckleyJohn Steakley, Joe Abercrombie, Robert Silverberg, the norse sagas, CJ Cherryh, PG Wodehouse, Clark Ashton Smith, Alastair Reynolds, Cordwainer Smith, LE Modesitt, L. Sprague de Camp & Fletcher Pratt, Stephen R Donaldon, and Jack L Chalker.

  8. #248
    Quote Originally Posted by Darsithis View Post
    They didn't.

    Activision merged with Vivdendi, which already owned Blizzard, at the end of 2007. Yes, owned. Blizzard was not on its own in 2007 nor was it on its own when they started World of Warcraft. They have no control over what Blizzard does. Having goals != having control. Blizzard is autonomous and makes its own decisions.
    Not quite right. Activision did not merge with Vivendi. Vivendi Games, a subsidiary of Vivendi, was merged into Activision, and Vivendi (the conglomerate) got a controlling interest in this merged entity.

    And of course Activision-Blizzard management has control over Blizzard. There were some restraints in the bylaws that were there to keep Vivendi happy, but those have all now been erased. Blizzard is just a division of Activision-Blizzard now; it's no more independent than Buick is independent of GM.
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
    "Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"

  9. #249
    Scarab Lord Vestig3's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The Netherlands, Amsterdam
    Posts
    4,621
    The answer is unmistakably no and why no? because its blizzard themself that ruined it, sure activision gave blizzard tons of idea's to make more money but from a game developing pov its blizzard thats responsible for the way the game turns out.
    - Vanilla was legitimately bad; we just didn't know any better at the time - SirCowDog


  10. #250
    Honorary PvM "Mod" Darsithis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    51,235
    Quote Originally Posted by Deficineiron View Post
    Are you seriously arguing that parent company change isn't a major corporate event that can have a significant effect on broader top-level decisions? What you are describing would be a massive liability for Activision-Blizzard. Are you intentionally talking about the activision subdivision rather than the parent company?
    Blizzard retained autonomy regardless of who is at the top level.

  11. #251
    Legendary! Deficineiron's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Forum Logic
    Posts
    6,576
    Quote Originally Posted by Darsithis View Post
    Actually there was a poster earlier in the thread who said that Yes, Activision controls Blizzard because look at how hard tuning was in 3.0.2 vs 2.4.
    Quote Originally Posted by Deficineiron View Post
    don't forget bullfrog either.

    but on topic, mmo-c (and wow forums) are the only place on the planet I have ever seen people claim a publicly traded company acquires a major division comprising almost half their total revenue yet doesn't exert any influence over them. Of course Kotick's mgmt team and philosophy impacted blizzard. Just look at the hard turn on tuning in 3.0.2 versus everythhing prior, including 2.4.
    Is this an accurate characterization of my statement above, which I assume you are referring to?

    you read the following too since you responded to it, which further expands on my thinking

    Quote Originally Posted by Deficineiron View Post
    Is it possible the activision-blizzard management team, the one that Blizzard entertainment reported to as a wholly-owned subsidiary after july 2008, suggested to them they felt the game needed to be made more accessible to a broader market, and left it to blizzard to figure out what that meant (or maybe even gave them a basic guideline - everyone should be able to see all of the content, like chilton recited in passive voice not too long after.'

    Do you feel the change of control had anything to do with the pve-pvp server xfer allowance, a reversal from not only 'no' but 'NEVER.'?
    Authors I have enjoyed enough to mention here: JRR Tolkein, Poul Anderson,Jack Vance, Gene Wolfe, Glen Cook, Brian Stableford, MAR Barker, Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, WM Hodgson, Fredrick Brown, Robert SheckleyJohn Steakley, Joe Abercrombie, Robert Silverberg, the norse sagas, CJ Cherryh, PG Wodehouse, Clark Ashton Smith, Alastair Reynolds, Cordwainer Smith, LE Modesitt, L. Sprague de Camp & Fletcher Pratt, Stephen R Donaldon, and Jack L Chalker.

  12. #252
    Quote Originally Posted by Darsithis View Post
    If you're referring to the meme, it's not appropriate for a mod to infract posts targeted specifically at them. I'll rely on my other team members to take care of things when they can.
    I am referring to the 10 char limit you bypassed so you could type: No . (the one where you put a bunch of spaces then a period)

    If you want people to obey rules, why not set the standard?

  13. #253
    Honorary PvM "Mod" Darsithis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    51,235
    Quote Originally Posted by Deficineiron View Post
    Is it possible the activision-blizzard management team, the one that Blizzard entertainment reported to as a wholly-owned subsidiary after july 2008, suggested to them they felt the game needed to be made more accessible to a broader market, and left it to blizzard to figure out what that meant (or maybe even gave them a basic guideline - everyone should be able to see all of the content, like chilton recited in passive voice not too long after.'

    Do you feel the change of control had anything to do with the pve-pvp server xfer allowance, a reversal from not only 'no' but 'NEVER.'?
    No, I don't think they're related.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skalm View Post
    I am referring to the 10 char limit you bypassed so you could type: No . (the one where you put a bunch of spaces then a period)

    If you want people to obey rules, why not set the standard?
    Oh back in 2015? That's not against the rules! You can do it, too, if you want, depending on the post and what you're replying to.

  14. #254
    Quote Originally Posted by Darsithis View Post
    Blizzard retained autonomy regardless of who is at the top level.
    C'mon, do you really believe that a company would merge with another and choose to have no say over it, when whatever happens with that company directly impacts their profits?

    That is all fluff on paper to keep the WoW fans happy.

    What do you think would have happened if they said 'We [Activision] are absorbing Blizzard. The course of WoW is now under our direction and we will make all decisions pertaining to it'?

    I'll tell you what...People would have freaked out.

    It is much easier for the masses to take when they come out and say 'We [Activision] are acquiring Blizzard through a merger, but we will let them act like they are still their own business'.

  15. #255
    Honorary PvM "Mod" Darsithis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    51,235
    Quote Originally Posted by Skalm View Post
    C'mon, do you really believe that a company would merge with another and choose to have no say over it, when whatever happens with that company directly impacts their profits?

    That is all fluff on paper to keep the WoW fans happy.

    What do you think would have happened if they said 'We [Activision] are absorbing Blizzard. The course of WoW is now under our direction and we will make all decisions pertaining to it'?

    I'll tell you what...People would have freaked out.

    It is much easier for the masses to take when they come out and say 'We [Activision] are acquiring Blizzard through a merger, but we will let them act like they are still their own business'.
    Sure. My company works the same way. We're "owned" by a parent company but they have no say in anything we do. We choose our clients, we choose how we work, we choose our pay structure, incentives, and bonuses.

  16. #256
    Quote Originally Posted by Darsithis View Post
    No, I don't think they're related.



    Oh back in 2015? That's not against the rules! You can do it, too, if you want, depending on the post and what you're replying to.
    Derp on me for not looking at the date...haha

    Why have the limit then, if it is encouraged to bypass it? lol

  17. #257
    Deleted
    No they didin't. Activision actually doesn't have much control over blizzard themselves.

    Blizzard just basically turned into arthas. Once a noble paladin , now a treacherous lich king lusting for power. It's like they wrote their own prophecy

  18. #258
    Quote Originally Posted by Darsithis View Post
    Sure. My company works the same way. We're "owned" by a parent company but they have no say in anything we do. We choose our clients, we choose how we work, we choose our pay structure, incentives, and bonuses.
    So they don't mandate anything to your company? Can you guys change your company name without their approval? Can you sell your company without their approval?

    What I am getting at, is that their is always a 'line' where that parent can and will step in and say 'nuh uh'.

  19. #259
    You're fucking idiots if you don't realize that poopy kottick and lessheim sometimes hang out together and throw "suggestions" at each other, moreso kottick.

    Ignorant children, wake up to how the real world works.

  20. #260
    Honorary PvM "Mod" Darsithis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    51,235
    Quote Originally Posted by Skalm View Post
    So they don't mandate anything to your company? Can you guys change your company name without their approval? Can you sell your company without their approval?

    What I am getting at, is that their is always a 'line' where that parent can and will step in and say 'nuh uh'.
    I suspect we couldn't just change our name, but in anything that is actually important, they don't have a say. I know for a fact that my boss (the CEO), has never had to ask for approval to give people raises, to pursue new clients, to change how we work (we transitioned to a work-from-home company last year), how much of our healthcare is paid by the company, and so on.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •