Y'all need to stop blaming Activision for everything.

[yomammyass]

First of all, it is even ignorant to state "Activision" as a single entity. Activision and Blizzard merged, so it is Activision Blizzard. One company, but different development teams and different games that get all of the profits as a single Business.

Blizzard was always in a partnership with bigger companies in the past, Vivendi. I don't know the exact contracts, but it mostly works that if Blizzard makes money from their games, then the bigger company will leave them alone, but if they have major losses, then it is up to the bigger company to take lead and figure out on how to move forward.

There were major f*** ups at Blizzard (Development team)overall.

Let's talk about World Of Warcraft. When Activision Merged with Blizzard, it was at the start of WOTLK, which had the highest Sub numbers 11.9mil+
after that over the years this declined and it is not a loss for you as a player, because you don't care, but it is a major loss for a Business.

from 12 mil to 2mil (being generous here) is a major loss.
You may argue 'oh, but 2 mill is still big', well no, for a shareholder when he invested, he wanted the subs to grow not to decline.


Overwatch was a success and still is.

Diablo 3 had great profits at the start, but due to bugs, bad decision making, lying (no pvp) made longevity of the game to bad levels.


Hero of the storm was pretty much a f** up, everybody knows this.


Hearthstone was and is still a success.


So overall, World of Warcraft, D3 and HoTs needed major changes, hence the firing of 800 employees, cutting content, not releasing nothing for other games like d3 etc.


In conclusion, I blame the Blizzard Dev Team for their f**k ups and I blame ex-wow, diablo players for un-subbing and letting Blizzard games to go on a decline mode.

So no, Activision did not happen.

[Doffen]

Yeah, no doubt the blizzard teams fault for not making good enough content. I mean they had to change a system midway into an expansion, when did that ever happen before? A system on a system, something that takes extra time to develop. Heck that could be one of the reason(before people go crazy on me) why we don't get 8.3.5.

To me, they did send everything they had planned into Legion after WoD. I mean Suramar alone was the budget of whole of WoD(you know, soon I might not even take this as a joke but the truth) and when they came to BfA they stopped and thought: "Where do we go from here" and tried something, and it failed.

The blizzard devs are to blame. Seeing the content we got in BfA is more than what we got in several earlier expansions I don't get why people think that they are "cutting resources from the WoW-team" when it's more the devs not doing stuff good enough.

[kappalol]

WotLK had the most subs not because it was the best expansion. But because TBC was great and had great sub increase overall and because WotLK had W3 Athas as Lich king.

In WotLK, the subs started to stagnate and even drop in the fist time ever.

[Daedius]

Activision is a publisher, not a developer...

[Doffen]

WotLK had the most subs not because it was the best expansion. But because TBC was great and had great sub increase overall and because WotLK had W3 Athas as Lich king.

In WotLK, the subs started to stagnate and even drop in the fist time ever.

Yeah TBC brought 3.5 million more players to the game, while WotLK added 0.5 million. I understand it had to stop somewhere and having 12 million players was very likely some kind of limit, meaning they couldn't get much more even if WotLK was different.

[Arikara]

how about fuck no to all of that

the problem isn't whether Blizzard are a success or not, the problem is that corporate executives expect more than success, they expect constant growth

so when reality inevitably fails to meet the expectation of constant growth, they start getting all clever and interfere with the design process, introducing monetization schemes and content that is designed to maximize revenue rather than player enjoyment, which then starts a downward spiral of declining quality, both within the games and within the work environment of the company

you know why HotS didn't do well? because they tried too damn hard to turn it into an esports which they could make money off of, instead of just focusing on the actual game (also it came fashionably late, so, there's that). same thing happened with overwatch, the esport side of it just didn't crash and burn nearly as hard

at the end of the day, it's always going to be some greedy fuck's fault. if you wanna blame activision or somebody else, that's up to you, but don't blame the game developers, they just do their best to do as they're told, and unlike those other fucks, actually have the best of intentions. unfortunately, they're tangled in so much red tape that they probably can't do a damn thing about the issues that they want to

[yomammyass]

Activision is a publisher, not a developer...

As of February 2018, Activision Blizzard is divided into three key business segments:

Activision Publishing, which handles the development, production, and distribution of video games from its subsidiary studios.

Blizzard Entertainment, which handles the development, production, and distribution of Blizzard's games. It also houses the company's esports activities including MLG and the Overwatch League.

King, which handles the development and distribution of its mobile games.

As I stated. Activision Blizzard has studios so that they develop games for them, they do many things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activision_Blizzard

[Daronokk]

First of all, it is even ignorant to state "Activision" as a single entity. Activision and Blizzard merged, so it is Activision Blizzard. One company, but different development teams and different games that get all of the profits as a single Business.

People often get this fact wrong but Activision and Blizzard didn't merge.

It's confusing since the new name is Activision Blizzard. But, it was Activision and Vivendi Games that merged. Blizzard was a part of Vivendi Games and thus isn't equal to Activision. That's how Activision is higher up in command and can order Blizzard around.

They just chose the name Activision Blizzard since it sounds good on paper and Blizzard back then was earning a lot of money and it's smart to cash in on that succes by naming the new company Activision Blizzard instead of Activision Vivendi Games.

[cuafpr]

I want to blame them for the "improved" gear store via fanatics but even that was blizz handing it over and not Activision controlling it. (if my source is right, take it for whats it worth) but yes blaming them everything is silly.

[Daronokk]

from 12 mil to 2mil (being generous here) is a major loss.
You may argue 'oh, but 2 mill is still big', well no, for a shareholder when he invested, he wanted the subs to grow not to decline.

You're telling me shareholders are so retarded that they don't understand the natural product life cycle? All products eventually go in decline, it's the natural order of things when they become outdated. WoW is losing subscriptions because it's an old outdated game. New expansions only delay the inevitable and growth is never a realistic goal. Shareholders know this. You probably don't, that's fine, you don't understand business 101.

Cashing in on a declining game is a real opportunity though. Which explains the cash shop with mounts, pets, cosmetics, tokens, etc.

So if you ask me, the cash shop might not totally be Activision's doing. Shareholders could suggest this to make money on a declining game.

But the decisions to cut their losses and abandon one expansion to work on another might very well be Activision's doing to cut costs. Also looking at Shadowlands lack of content is also a clear indication of minimal effort to cut the development costs of the expansion. Just deliver a bare bone expansion and go wild on microtransactions to make some money. WoW doesn't have long now, a few years max before it's declared dead.

[yomammyass]

You're telling me shareholders are so retarded that they don't understand the natural product life cycle? All products eventually go in decline, it's the natural order of things when they become outdated. WoW is losing subscriptions because it's an old outdated game. New expansions only delay the inevitable and growth is never a realistic goal. Shareholders know this. You probably don't, that's fine, you don't understand business 101.

Cashing in on a declining game is a real opportunity though. Which explains the cash shop with mounts, pets, cosmetics, tokens, etc.

Ehh, so much wrong in this reply that I cannot deal with it.

No one knew the natural product life cycle of World of Warcraft in 2008, since it never declined, till Cataclysm.

"WoW is losing subscriptions because it's an old outdated game." - Sure bud.

"You probably don't, that's fine, you don't understand business 101. I think I have more knowledge than someone who states "Activision Happened" every time.


"Cashing in on a declining game is a real opportunity though. Which explains the cash shop with mounts, pets, cosmetics, tokens, etc."

Nope, not really. Since Blizzard lost that much subs during the years, the company is looking for other methods to gain back the level of profit they once did during high subs.

[McNeil]

I see the relationship with Activision and Blizzard the same as with Palpatine and Darth Vader.

[Yoshingo]

Good boy, defend the billion dollar company. I'm sure Bobby Kotick will send you your stipend any day now.

[yomammyass]

I see the relationship with Activision and Blizzard the same as with Palpatine and Darth Vader.

I can't imagine the 'merging' process

- - - Updated - - -

Good boy, defend the billion dollar company. I'm sure Bobby Kotick will send you your stipend any day now.

Lawl, I wish. I am not defending no one. I am just asking you to stop blaming Activision for everything, because you will look like a fool.

Think about it for a sec. You remember all of those controversies , at WoW forums, here about Blizzard's decisions in the past? Yes, that is 100% blizzard's fault.

[Gaidax]

Overall Blizzard is responsible for the state of Blizzard games. There is this convenience for some in having this "ActiPalpatine" pulling strings from the shadows, but really guys, face it - many of your grievances are rooted in game design and Activision execs do not burst into Blizzard meeting rooms demanding for BFA story being what it is, for your spec to do this thing you totally hate or for daily being kill 3 rares that die in 20 seconds from spawn moment.

So yeah, much of this Activision bullshit is really unwarranted. It's not Activision fault that Blizzard keeps dicking around with its IPs (hello Starcraft?) or that Sylvie burnt a tree and went REEEEeee and Warfronts with Islands did not play out.

[Beefhammer]

Overall Blizzard is responsible for the state of Blizzard games. There is this convenience for some in having this "ActiPalpatine" pulling strings from the shadows, but really guys, face it - many of your grievances are rooted in game design and Activision execs do not burst into Blizzard meeting rooms demanding for BFA story being what it is, for your spec to do this thing you totally hate or for daily being kill 3 rares that die in 20 seconds from spawn moment.

So yeah, much of this Activision bullshit is really unwarranted. It's not Activision fault that Blizzard keeps dicking around with its IPs (hello Starcraft?) or that Sylvie burnt a tree and went REEEEeee and Warfronts with Islands did not play out.

There is this constant pull form both sides I feel in regards to Blizzard. Prior to the Activision buyout, Not when Vivendi acquired Activision, Blizzard was able to do their won thing. Which is great from a developer/artist point of view, no pressure to release products, no rush to get things done, they could take their time. After the Activision buyout, it's obvious pressures the pressure for releases and revenues was placed. Trying to go from a laid back environment of when it's ready we'll release it to needing to have stuff ready regularly doesn't just happen over night.

While Activision demanded more from Blizzard, Blizzard had no idea how to handle that demand. And as a business you are there to make money. So it makes sense to push out the old that are getting in the way of Activision's way of doing business.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, no doubt the blizzard teams fault for not making good enough content. I mean they had to change a system midway into an expansion, when did that ever happen before? A system on a system, something that takes extra time to develop. Heck that could be one of the reason(before people go crazy on me) why we don't get 8.3.5.

To me, they did send everything they had planned into Legion after WoD. I mean Suramar alone was the budget of whole of WoD(you know, soon I might not even take this as a joke but the truth) and when they came to BfA they stopped and thought: "Where do we go from here" and tried something, and it failed.

The blizzard devs are to blame. Seeing the content we got in BfA is more than what we got in several earlier expansions I don't get why people think that they are "cutting resources from the WoW-team" when it's more the devs not doing stuff good enough.

I'd also rather see a developer try new things and fail, than give us the same shit with different skins all the time.

[Zequill]

But a youtuber said he spoke to a random bloke that claim he is a blizzard employee and he said it's all Activision fault, it's must be true...

[kranur]

Lol. Those games work because they were bulit specifically to rip people off.

With wow they just try to force it.

[Osmeric]

People often get this fact wrong but Activision and Blizzard didn't merge.

It's confusing since the new name is Activision Blizzard. But, it was Activision and Vivendi Games that merged. Blizzard was a part of Vivendi Games and thus isn't equal to Activision. That's how Activision is higher up in command and can order Blizzard around.

More specifically, Blizzard and related parts were merged INTO Activision. The resulting corporation was then renamed Activision-Blizzard. But it's legally the same entity that was called Activision before.

The deal involved some details in the corporate bylaws that allowed Vivendi veto power over certain things Activision-Blizzard execs (read: Kotick) could do to the Blizzard segment. However, with the Vivendi buyout, all that was stripped out, and Blizzard is now just another box on the org chart.

[furydeath]

Ya ya your right the fact that the first in-game store mount only shows up weeks after Activision come's in is only a coincidence