Page 1 of 2
1
2
LastLast
  1. #1

    Why do larger companies ruin MMOs?

    I have been gaming long enough to notice a trend.

    Ultima Online started by Origin...turned to crap by EA
    Everquest started by Verant.... turned to crap by SoE
    Dark Age of Camelot started by Mythic....turned to crap by EA
    World of Warcraft started by Blizzard....acquired by Activision...losing massive amounts of subs

    Why cant companies just leave perfectly good games alone?

  2. #2
    The Lightbringer inboundpaper's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Close to San Fransisco, CA
    Posts
    3,102
    Ooh, you forgot SWG. I just know someone took over and ruined it though.
    Quote Originally Posted by Asmodias View Post
    Sadly, with those actors... the "XXX Adaptation" should really be called 50 shades of watch a different porno.
    Muh main
    Destiny

  3. #3
    Because there's no such thing as "enough money", especially when shareholders are involved.

  4. #4
    Brewmaster insmek's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    1,436
    Quote Originally Posted by Lythria View Post
    World of Warcraft started by Blizzard....acquired by Activision...losing massive amounts of subs
    Blizzard was not acquired by Activision. Actually, it would almost be more accurate to say that Blizzard acquired Activision, since Blizzard's former parent company, Vivendi, is still the majority shareholder.

  5. #5
    Money my dear friend, money is all that matters today...

  6. #6

  7. #7
    Seems like WoW still has more subscribers than any other MMO...ever. Most of them combined wouldn't equal wow right now. They almost ALWAYS lose subs at the tail end of an expansion. To assume that it means the end is foolish.
    If you don't like it, go on the internet and complain.

  8. #8
    Because MMOs are a lot more expensive to make. Because when using so much money they don't want to take risk. Because no risk = no reward.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by lazymangaka View Post
    Blizzard was not acquired by Activision. Actually, it would almost be more accurate to say that Blizzard acquired Activision, since Blizzard's former parent company, Vivendi, is still the majority shareholder.
    Yes and no. Vivendi did merge with Activision, but it's more than apparent by their actions that Activision was acquired to run their Blizzard department. Considering Activision's CEO is now Activision/Blizzard's CEO, it's pretty easy to see who's running the show.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Lythria View Post
    World of Warcraft started by Blizzard....acquired by Activision...losing massive amounts of subs
    I'd debate this. The largest increase in subscribers was during LK, post "merger" (Activision doesn't own them). The loss in subscribers now has less to do with "Activision" or "too much money blah", and more to do with a radical change in direction in the most recent expansion and the simple fact that the game is beginning to show its age and see some real competition.

    Quote Originally Posted by notorious98 View Post
    Considering Activision's CEO is now Activision/Blizzard's CEO, it's pretty easy to see who's running the show.
    No? Mike Morhaime is still the CEO of Blizzard and still runs the company. Activision-Blizzard is what Activision goes by nowadays IIRC.
    Last edited by Edge-; 2012-02-03 at 11:20 PM.

  11. #11
    Welcome to the publishing business. Be it a book or a game, its the same business model.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by wadark View Post
    Seems like WoW still has more subscribers than any other MMO...ever. Most of them combined wouldn't equal wow right now. They almost ALWAYS lose subs at the tail end of an expansion. To assume that it means the end is foolish.
    Blizzard lost subs at the beginning of the expansion. Or are you forgetting their drop in subscriptions from 12+ million pre Cata to 11.4 in March of 2011? Or the steady decline in subs since last March? To the tune of 10.3 million subs as of November? To make the sweeping generalization that they're losing subs because of the "end of an expansion" is factually inaccurate.

  13. #13
    Money, longevity, promotion, etc.

  14. #14
    No? Mike Morhaime is still the CEO of Blizzard and still runs the company. Activision-Blizzard is what Activision goes by nowadays IIRC.
    Yep. And I believe Blizzard and Morhaime still make all the decisions for WoW. Activision really has nothing to do with it. Besides, it still has 11+ million players or something like that, so you can't really say it's dying. It is losing subs, but it's also been out for about 7 years. People are starting to get bored and burnt out. If MoP is as good as it looks, I could see it bringing in quite a few new or old players.

    WoW is really the only MMO I've played, but I'd have to say what everyone else is saying: money. That and EA's not a very good company in the first place, which you listed a few times.
    Last edited by Duruka; 2012-02-03 at 11:33 PM.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by edgecrusherO0 View Post
    No? Mike Morhaime is still the CEO of Blizzard and still runs the company. Activision-Blizzard is what Activision goes by nowadays IIRC.
    Yes? Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. is a subsidiary of Activision-Blizzard, Inc. Kotick is the CEO of Activision-Blizzard, Inc. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. would be considered an underling or a segment of the whole that is Activision-Blizzard along with Activision and Activision-Blizzard distribution.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by notorious98 View Post
    Yes? Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. is a subsidiary of Activision-Blizzard, Inc. Kotick is the CEO of Activision-Blizzard, Inc. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. would be considered an underling or a segment of the whole that is Activision-Blizzard along with Activision and Activision-Blizzard distribution.
    Subsidiary or not Blizzard still functions independently. We can argue over what kind of influence Kotick/Activision has over Blizzard proper, but at the end of the day Morhaime still runs Blizzard.

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by notorious98 View Post
    Yes? Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. is a subsidiary of Activision-Blizzard, Inc. Kotick is the CEO of Activision-Blizzard, Inc. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. would be considered an underling or a segment of the whole that is Activision-Blizzard along with Activision and Activision-Blizzard distribution.
    "On July 9, 2008, Activision officially merged with Vivendi Games, culminating in the inclusion of the Blizzard brand name in the title of the resulting holding company, though Blizzard Entertainment remains a separate entity with independent management." From Wikipedia, and yes it has another source if you feel like reading it. They did merge, but they still make and publish games separately.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by edgecrusherO0 View Post
    Subsidiary or not Blizzard still functions independently. We can argue over what kind of influence Kotick/Activision has over Blizzard proper, but at the end of the day Morhaime still runs Blizzard.
    I never said that Morhaime didn't. But it's no different than franchising a business. Yeah, at the end of the day you make decisions for your franchise, but if that corporate business wants something changed, you change it or you lose your franchise. Morhaime is the CEO of Blizzard, but he still answers to Kotick who's the CEO of Morhaime's parent company.

  19. #19
    Pandaren Monk Agent Mercury's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Eielson AFB, AK
    Posts
    1,806
    Quote Originally Posted by notorious98 View Post
    I never said that Morhaime didn't. But it's no different than franchising a business. Yeah, at the end of the day you make decisions for your franchise, but if that corporate business wants something changed, you change it or you lose your franchise. Morhaime is the CEO of Blizzard, but he still answers to Kotick who's the CEO of Morhaime's parent company.
    Because that would happen in this case.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by notorious98 View Post
    I never said that Morhaime didn't. But it's no different than franchising a business. Yeah, at the end of the day you make decisions for your franchise, but if that corporate business wants something changed, you change it or you lose your franchise. Morhaime is the CEO of Blizzard, but he still answers to Kotick who's the CEO of Morhaime's parent company.
    Why do people think Kotick is an infallible tyrant? He is but one of many people on the board of Activision-Blizzard.

    You know who else is on that board? Jean-Bernard Levy. In fact, he is chairman of the board. Does that name ring a bell? No? He's also CEO of Vivendi SA, which is the company that owns FUCKING EVERYTHING.

    Jean-Bernard Levy is the one holding Kotick's reins, and he has lorded over Blizzard since long before he bought Activision.

Posting Permissions

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