Message from J. Allen Brack

[rhorle]

Also a game boy and a game gear isn't equivalent to a fucking phone. It would be incomprehensibly stupid to pretend "mobile gaming" refers to handheld platforms like the Switch or PS Vita, yet it seems you're trying to do just that.

Oh. So gaming on a mobile device has catches in order to justify hate. Gotcha. A phone is no different then game boys and the like. There is no reason why phones should be treated as evil just because. The switch is essentially a limited tablet. Phones can play fortnite and PUBG. There is no reason why they can't be made to play more games by more developers. The high end phones have enough power to do it.

Blizzard can and should branch out. It doesn't matter if they are first and foremost a PC gaming company. Stupid limits like that would have stopped Microsoft from making the Xbox. Or sony from making the playstation. And yet we have a OS company and a Radio company that produce the two leading consoles.

And none of that changes that Blizzard is already on the mobile platform with Hearthstone. To say they can't develop anymore games just because is down right dumb. So is Hearthstone a bad game? Is it bad for Blizzard?

[Zandalariprelate]

I've seen game companies try to spin layoffs. They say everything is strong and they are dedicated to development. But, a layoff is a layoff. There is weakness.

Yes probably they wanted to get more profit, but anyway this happened back in 2012, so at least some of these people might get a job into a less expensive zone(from what I hear California has some ridiculous life costs)

[Ungeir]

Nonetheless, they will follow the money and the money right now and for the foreseeable future is partially in mobile.

I know you are saying "partially", so forgive me for using you as a strawman. But I think the following is a very important point to make.

It is incorrect that the mobile market is future of gaming, the best source of profit and that Activision-Blizzard are actively changing focus from PC to mobile games.

1) It's actually pretty difficult to be profitable on mobile. In the western markets, it's very much "winner-takes-it-all". I've seen first-hand plenty of mobile games fail to even break even.

2) Mobile gaming is seen as a growth opportunity for ATVI, EA, etc. This means they want to leverage existing brands, assets and company infrastructure to gain *additional* revenue. This is not a zero-sum game for them.

3) This is not a new thing. I saw it from the inside more than 10 years ago. Major publishers and developers were trying very hard to find profitable ways to either integrate mobile or create games solely for mobile.

ATVI and EA are not only finding it difficult to grow in the PC and Console markets - they are facing legislation of the very profitable lootbox monetization, salaries for engineers/QA/project have risen dramatically and competition from indies and "medium-size" studios has increased. Desperate for growth they once more look to mobile. This doesn't mean they are abandoning PC and Console. Far from it.

Blizzard is having a productivity crisis - Activision is unhappy with their output, gamers are unhappy with their output. When they put Diablo Immortal center-stage at Blizzcon it isn't because they are abandoning PC. It's because they don't have anything else to show.

They were always a slow company with many failed projects - but they made it up for it by consistently creating massive hits when they finally released something. It's pretty simple really - every surprise smash hit they put out buys more time. But layoffs like these will happen consistently when they don't. Because they do have a lot of corporate cruft and an inefficient production pipeline and culture.

Mobile is just a red herring - it's not going to fundamentally change what's about to happen to Blizzard. They either increase productivity or they wither and die.

[MoanaLisa]

I know you are saying "partially", so forgive me for using you as a strawman. But I think the following is a very important point to make.

That's fine and I don't mind.

I agree with your post. I very much find it ridiculous and embarrassing for Blizzard that they haven't released a new title since 2016. I also find it ridiculous that they take years to get a game to market very often too late to take serious long-term advantage of the market niche (see: HotS).

Their reliance on hitting a home run every time they come to bat is a terrible strategy in a market that changes quickly and in which trends, should I dare say, are very mobile.

If Brack needs to do anything he needs to call an all-hands meeting today and inform people that going for years with no new titles is completely unacceptable and invite anyone employed by the company to send the management team a suggestion about a design or IP that they could do.

I don't think mobile is necessarily a red herring but Blizzard can no longer afford to be ignoring popular gaming platforms, whatever they are now and in the future.

[Biomega]

Like I mentioned I have an idea of how corporations work. Yet sacking a 30k/year position is a drop in the sea compared to the multimillion sums over glorified accountants get. These money aren't high because they are of some omnipotent demigod ability and their work is magic and immaculate, it is the result of financial layering which is arranged so by these same over glorified accountants.

Either way I did not ask for an explanation of how business is misunderstood. I point that sacking people with micro salaries is squeezing the company for a few more cents which could be easily sourced through reigning in the ridiculous bonusing top positions accumolate.

That is not to say I support some sort of socialistic redistribution of wealth, but it is high management decision whether and how cost cutting can be achieved and mass layoffs in highly profitable companies aren't the only option.

I agree that there are systemic problems that cause wildly disproportionate gaps in pay between the high and low end of the scale, and that this is a huge issue for the economy in general.

But don't conflate this with layoffs. These people were let go because they're no longer generating money, not because they couldn't afford to keep them. It doesn't matter what you pay your top executives, if someone you employ creates less profit than they cost you to keep around, they are redundant. That's true regardless of how much money the company has. If Blizz had 100 trillion dollars, there STILL wouldn't be a reason to pay someone a $50,000 a year salary only to have them generate $30,000 worth of profit a year.

[Sinyc]

People of a certain age will not want to learn to code, it is just a fact that new skills are not important to most people getting to retirement age. This is why universal basic income is going to need to exist or you will have a swath of people close to retirement having to die in the streets. Though I will say, very soon in the next 2 decades coding won't even be needed since you will be able to dictate to an AI what you want it to create for you.

I don't know about in the next 20 years. Although I wouldn't be surprised. At that point computers would have taken us over and there would legit be ZERO use for any human to be working.

[Sithalos]

Oh wow, the "You think you do, but you don't" guy turned out to be a shithead. Who saw that coming?

[JacobusRex]

What a jizz-stained hand puppet of a human being. I'm ashamed to be the same species as this person.

[DoomReaver]

you are a huge piece of shit then.

that is not very nice.

[cerberus1838]

This is why the gaming industry needs to unionise.

[Awe]

Blizzard was an awesome developer since the 90. and for the entire first decade of this century. They inspired passion and I will love them forever for what they did. But this Blizzard is long gone now. People who created all those awesome things are no longer working there. And the company, good or bad, is represented by people who work there. It is all about people, not logo. Blizzard is dead. What you have now should be frankly renamed to Bill$ard as it runs with a sole goal of reaping your wallet apart. Old Blizzard wanted to create the best games they could and they knew that money will come as a reward for this effort. Bill$ard just runs a spreadsheet to check what is the most optimal price for a lootbox and the game itself is just designed around that. RIP Blizzard. You will be missed but never forgotten.

[DeltrusDisc]

Right, this reminded me I need to unsub from WoW. Thanks!

[Laylriana]

Blizzard was an awesome developer since the 90. and for the entire first decade of this century. They inspired passion and I will love them forever for what they did. But this Blizzard is long gone now. People who created all those awesome things are no longer working there. And the company, good or bad, is represented by people who work there. It is all about people, not logo. Blizzard is dead. What you have now should be frankly renamed to Bill$ard as it runs with a sole goal of reaping your wallet apart. Old Blizzard wanted to create the best games they could and they knew that money will come as a reward for this effort. Bill$ard just runs a spreadsheet to check what is the most optimal price for a lootbox and the game itself is just designed around that. RIP Blizzard. You will be missed but never forgotten.

Two of the three people who started Blizzard are still with the company. Mike Morhaime is the only one who left. Allen Adham and Frank Pearce are still with Blizzard.

[clevin]

But don't conflate this with layoffs. These people were let go because they're no longer generating money, not because they couldn't afford to keep them. It doesn't matter what you pay your top executives, if someone you employ creates less profit than they cost you to keep around, they are redundant. That's true regardless of how much money the company has. If Blizz had 100 trillion dollars, there STILL wouldn't be a reason to pay someone a $50,000 a year salary only to have them generate $30,000 worth of profit a year.

Some staff never generates profit. It's not the function of the position. Think office managers or accountants or tech support. Those kinds of jobs are never profit centers. They're cost centers by design. You tend to limit them and try to have the overhead they generate be below a certain percentage of the revenue for their business unit, but they don't generate revenue themselves.

That said, if the business unit sees a drop in revenue that seems medium to long term (not just a quarter or two), then you might want cut these positions to balance the overhead with the new lower revenue.

The problem is that it never seems to be the senior execs who see their salary cut when results which they're responsible for are under plan. It's particularly galling to fire people because revenue, then toss $15m as a bonus to a new guy. If the company is not performing to spec... why do that? If it's well off enough to do that... why layoff people?

[drypulse]

Fuck you, J.

[Tucci]

Just let Blizzard peacefully die already. They've had a pretty good run. It's time.

What in the fuck am I reading? XD

You realize Blizzard is a different animal altogether when it comes to multiplayer games? In terms of quality, they hold a higher standard. Like it's not even close. Blizzard is to multiplayer what Naughty Dog and Rockstar are to singleplayer. If it existed, they'd be considered one of the VERY few AAAA studios.

Blizzard isn't going anywhere and you're delusional if you think so. With the truck loads of money they've made just off of Hearthstone, Overwatch and WoW over the years, you think "it's time?"

LOL

I suggest the clueless teenage casuals refrain from praying for their demise. If Blizzard died, multiplayer gaming would die. You'd be left with EA and other horrible, money-grubbing studios that don't give a fuck about their community or their products. Blizzard's BETAS are more polished.

At the end of the day, every genre they touch, they own. Studios like that don't "die". They hit low points, that's it.

[Starsurge]

who would've thought the you think you do but you don't guy would be a shitty leader right?

[h4rr0d]

The problem is that it never seems to be the senior execs who see their salary cut when results which they're responsible for are under plan. It's particularly galling to fire people because revenue, then toss $15m as a bonus to a new guy. If the company is not performing to spec... why do that? If it's well off enough to do that... why layoff people?

This is, what's grinding my gears the most. Old CFO is fired (they try to disguise as something else, but its essentially a firing, they get severance package for whatever reason, then they get immediately hired by another company (WTF???) and then you hire mew guy and give them what ammounts to 10 years worth of senior developer's salary as a sign up bonus? Seriously, if all C level people globally disappeared all of the sudden, I'm pretty sure no one would notice and everyone would be better off. Maybe except investors, but those can burn in hell.

[Biomega]

Some staff never generates profit. It's not the function of the position. Think office managers or accountants or tech support. Those kinds of jobs are never profit centers. They're cost centers by design. You tend to limit them and try to have the overhead they generate be below a certain percentage of the revenue for their business unit, but they don't generate revenue themselves.

That said, if the business unit sees a drop in revenue that seems medium to long term (not just a quarter or two), then you might want cut these positions to balance the overhead with the new lower revenue.

The problem is that it never seems to be the senior execs who see their salary cut when results which they're responsible for are under plan. It's particularly galling to fire people because revenue, then toss $15m as a bonus to a new guy. If the company is not performing to spec... why do that? If it's well off enough to do that... why layoff people?

To clarify, by "generate profit" I mean overall contribution to the company's bottom line. Office managers, accountants, tech support, and so on DO contribute - they may not show directly the way sales people do, but these people exist for a reason - even if that reason is to give other people in the company time to earn MORE profits. An executive without an assistant, for example, would have to take care of things that aren't directly earning money; so by giving them an assistant and freeing up their time, you indirectly increase profits.

Of course, that means it's very hard to correctly identify and objectively assess the "value" of someone. That's up to the management to decide, based on many factors. At the end of the day someone has to make the call why having 2 admin staff is fine, but having 5 is not (or whatever).

I'm just pointing out that it's not just about the available money. You could cut an exec's bonus by 90%, but that still wouldn't make it a good idea to employ someone who doesn't net you any money - even if you could afford to do so.

In the end, every expense a company makes needs to be justified in some way. Long term, short term, directly, indirectly - but money has to come out somewhere at some point.

[MoanaLisa]

To clarify, by "generate profit" I mean overall contribution to the company's bottom line. Office managers, accountants, tech support, and so on DO contribute - they may not show directly the way sales people do, but these people exist for a reason - even if that reason is to give other people in the company time to earn MORE profits. An executive without an assistant, for example, would have to take care of things that aren't directly earning money; so by giving them an assistant and freeing up their time, you indirectly increase profits.

Every company I know of that produces product, virtual or otherwise, tends to divide their non-executive/managerial employees up into two categories:

1.) The people that manufacture/produce/make/create the stuff they sell.
2.) Support staff.

When it comes time to trim payroll it's always support that gets hit first and hardest. The only exception to that is if the company decides to stop making that particular product entirely, i.e. a specific make or model of car, etc.. You're right that they are important and I've seen a couple of companies that went immediately south once their planning and QA departments were decimated. It's hard and these things are never pleasant for anyone. The CM's that are left, the e-sports people that remain will now be expected to do double and triple the work they did before. Most likely it will be too much and efficiency/procedures will be lost and something bad will likely happen because of it.

EDIT: Executive pay is another issue and it's very unusual that anyone is giving anything up to allow more people to stay. The whole point is to shed head count and the numerous expenses that go with it. I'm not approving any of this lest someone think I am. But it's how it works.