Did Activision ruin Blizzard?

[RoxyBlue]

suppose, just suppose, blizzard suddenly had to get player participation in all content levels up across the board, with wotlk almost done or basicaly done. How could they quickly accomplish that?

remove threat, nerf all mob damage, nerf any and all gating/attunement mechanics for heroics and raids.

heroics were being steamrolled on release. raids (except harder sarth variants) were being easily pugged.

Did we play the same game? Heroics were not being steamrolled on release, and ulduar was not cleared for 85 days and pugs never got past FL when it came out. If you are talking naxx that was a joke of a raid to hard core raiders, it was the same thing as always they were familiar with it, I think they killed it the week it came out. But again pugs were not just mowing the place down when it came out. As for sarth there was a.. clever use of mechanics with priest reflective shield.

[Malachi256]

Impossible to say that Activision is specifically responsible for the way WoW has developed, but the game definitely feels like it went from being a "by gamers, for gamers" game to a corporate cash cow.

[Deficineiron]

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.

based on your impression of Kotick, (based on interviews, comments, and known actions), do you feel this is how he would run a division that, as-of the merger date, was nearly half his revenue?

[Deficineiron]

Did we play the same game? Heroics were not being steamrolled on release, and ulduar was not cleared for 85 days and pugs never got past FL when it came out. If you are talking naxx that was a joke of a raid to hard core raiders, it was the same thing as always they were familiar with it, I think they killed it the week it came out. But again pugs were not just mowing the place down when it came out. As for sarth there was a.. clever use of mechanics with priest reflective shield.

I am talking heroics and I am talking pre-3.1. Furthermore, I started a thread on this in 3.0.9 and said so, and I can link it.

[PixelFox]

Honestly I see absolutely no difference in Blizzard's behavior pre and post Activision merger.

I'm pretty sure Blizzard has sold their parent companies over the years on the idea that in order to be successful they need to be left alone and not pressured to release games before they're ready etc.

The massive failure during WoD (losing literally half their customers after being shown that 10 million people *wanted* to play their game) and the subsequent total lack of any accountability or change to management or the game design decision makers is pretty much proof of this.

If anything I would blame Activision for lack of oversight rather than accusing them of meddling.

[Osmeric]

I am talking heroics and I am talking pre-3.1. Furthermore, I started a thread on this in 3.0.9 and said so, and I can link it.

GC had a comment that participation in Ulduar was "tiny". There's a reason ToC came out so quickly and was relatively detuned compared to Ulduar.

What I've always wanted to know is how, given the experience of the various raid tiers in Wrath, could they have thought the initial Cataclysm design was going to work. Maybe they expected to have LFR available from the start but it got delayed?

[Irian]

Well, according to post-Blizzard Greg Street (who didn't have a whole lot of reason to lie) Activision played almost no part in Blizzard, and I'm somewhat inclined to believe him. The game didn't start going to shit in the Activision days, it was a sharp collapse in Cataclysm and Warlords of Draenor due to misguided design goals. For Cataclysm, the entire revamp of the old Azeroth was clearly to blame, and in Warlords of Draenor I feel as if Garrisons took up a lot of time thanks to their (likely) complicated implementation.
I get the strong feeling that Garrisons were a bite more than Blizzard could chew, and this is strongly indicated in how much they changed from their announcement. They went from a personal town with active NPCs in a real part of the world that can be visited by other players to...well, a phased half-assed glorified quest/app minigame hub with NPCs that walk back and forth.

Granted, I'm not saying Activision isn't a possibility, but I personally think it's just a scapegoat a lot of people point to because they're easy to hate. Blizzard is doing extremely well for themselves profit-wise and not giving Activision any reason to interfere. Because it's kind of a questionable company (coughbobbykotickcough) it's easy to vilify them but I personally blame Blizzard fully for the shit they've done. It's all been pretty understandable on a basic level...I mean, it was still bad, but you always have to remember that there's a disconnect between an idea and a finished product and sometimes it just fails. It's just that Warlords of Draenor was a catastrophic failure.

[Osmeric]

I'm pretty sure Blizzard has sold their parent companies over the years on the idea that in order to be successful they need to be left alone and not pressured to release games before they're ready etc.

More likely, they said something like "if you push too hard all these irreplaceable people will quit".

I surmise the effort to increase the dev team was substantially motivated by the desire to make no one irreplaceable.

[Deleted]

You only have to look at the Black Ops 3 supply drop system to see how scum Activision practices have become.

Indeed... I don't play BO3 but I know how easy it is to buy supplies for it. An easy £7.99 here, an easy £7.99 there done over a console with no possibility for a refund... it's easy money for Activision.. kinda makes me sad that games have become like that.

[Deficineiron]

GC had a comment that participation in Ulduar was "tiny". There's a reason ToC came out so quickly and was relatively detuned compared to Ulduar.

What I've always wanted to know is how, given the experience of the various raid tiers in Wrath, could they have thought the initial Cataclysm design was going to work. Maybe they expected to have LFR available from the start but it got delayed?

cataclysm tuning is a puzzle, particularly with LFD already in the game. I think it would have been a real problem even without it with playerbase conditioned by wotlk, but random groups in content tuned like that had to be obvious to some at blizzard that a train wreck was coming.

as far as not releasing content till it is ready - bc launched late, missing the xmas window in 2006.

cataclysm launched with a badly broken BG queue that wasn't fixed for 6 months (and pretty much not discussed by blue either). i am not sure how 'game-breaking' this was overall but it was a crippling bug for a subset of players.

[Arrashi]

A harsh and brutal world of video game industry ruined blizzard.

[therealbowser]

Most definitely yes i think they did.They took over in 2008 and ever since then wow went from huge subs to what it is today.It started catering more to lazy play and not what it had been doing since vanilla.I am sad that wow is in the disarray it is in today but i at least have fond memory's of what it once was.

Actually WoW's downfall began with Cataclysm, which had severely challenging content that drove away players. They went from one extreme to another, and haven't had a freaking clue what to do with the game since WotLK.

[RoxyBlue]

GC had a comment that participation in Ulduar was "tiny". There's a reason ToC came out so quickly and was relatively detuned compared to Ulduar.

Personally I loved Ulduar was my favorite raid of wrath. My guild went in the night it was released.. well once we got past the loading screen instance aborted monster. We downed FL and wiped on hot potato bug over and over that night because the debuff was bugged and jumping around lasting too long.

[Osmeric]

On the subject of Greg Street: how long due gag clauses in employment contracts typically last? He left Blizzard more than two years ago.

[RoxyBlue]

On the subject of Greg Street: how long due gag clauses in employment contracts typically last? He left Blizzard more than two years ago.

Well if he wants to be considered a man of integrity by any future employer and by his peers, then it lasts forever.

[Pann]

Maybe they expected to have LFR available from the start but it got delayed?

I'm sure I read that LFR was a MoP feature that was brought forward.

[Demeter]

Activision in some ways can be a good thing. Activision isn't really what you think it is, they just advertise and market the games that developers make. Think of it this way, you make lemonades - I am Activision, I come into the picture and make posters for you all over town to advertise your lemonade stand and for every lemonade you end up selling I get a cut even if small I get a cut. This is what Activision does, they just market and sell for Blizzard and in some cases they might invest in order to help promote sales and the volume of product in exchange for a cut of the profits, but in reality they dont have that much say as people think in what direction the game is heading. Now if Activision puts money down for Blizzard which I doubt towards a game then they do get some say in for example how much the game is going to be priced for, micro transactions and shit like that but with the amount of money Blizzard makes do you really think they need money from Activision? A good example of this is look at what Activision did with Destiny, do you really think if Activision had not put down so much money forward to advertise and market Destiny that Bungie would of had such a succesful launch? Now that Activision isn't directly involved look at how much Destiny is suffering and losing people left and right. Activision are not the Nazis you really think they are.

[Deficineiron]

Activision in some ways can be a good thing, but in many other ways its just such a bad thing for the game industry. Activision isnt really what you think it is, they just advertise and market the games that developers make. Think of it this way, you make lemonades - I am activision, I come into the picture and make posters for you all over town to advertise your lemonade stand and for every lemonade you end up selling I get a cut

because i also control your budget and also am your ultimate boss and the entity that owns you lock stock and barrel, I suggest broad, general changes in product direction to help sell MORE lemonade. I may even substitute cheaper lemons which might not be equal in quality but have higher margins.

to be clear, activision-blizzard owns blizzard 100% totally completely and has since july 2008. the above example misses this point.

[PrivateSmiley]

No, because activision did NOT buy blizzard FFS.

Vivendi bought activision and merged it with blizzard to create activision blizzard. Many years later activision blizzard then bought themselves out of vivendi.

[Deficineiron]

No, because activision did NOT buy blizzard FFS.

Vivendi bought activision and merged it with blizzard to create activision blizzard. Many years later activision blizzard then bought themselves out of vivendi.

more accurate than some posts here but it was a reverse merger, with the unusual feature that the management of the lesser partner became overall management of the new entity. also the bylaws were sufficiently complex to provide for the interests of both Kotick and Vivendi.