Activision Blizzard Shareholder SOC Letter, Diablo II: Resurrected Early Access

[MoanaLisa]

grabbing my popcorn…

and the best part of the show is, when ppl start to make some community fight based on opinion „sides“ or some SJW smash (sorry „debate“) out of all this stuff, like its already happening in this thread.

fantastic times, if you like popcorn.

This is a site that thrives on fights, not debates (which implies that minds can be moved). It's genuinely sad.

- - - Updated - - -

I love the implication that hiring practices as they stand are based on merit.

I can tell you all from experience that's bull. When I worked at a big firm I got to be involved with choosing the summer interns (one of which might get to be a JA) this is the exact order of candidate choice
1. The person who's name came down from on high as 'recommended, that's friends and family of a partner or big client
2. Whoever sucked the most dick at the two annual law student mixers that I tried to avoid because I found the whole atmosphere disgusting. And yes I have been told to my face by a partner in the bad old days that wasn't just figurative.
3. External experience
4. Academics (the only ones who apply to these firms are the 'straight As' anyway)

As you can see 1 and 3 already favor people who come from backgrounds of historic power, beyond that 'merit' is secondary anyway.

I would only add to this that in IT (as well as other industries but my experience is in IT) applicants are often pre-chosen due to various social and professional networks on the part of all involved including non-managers. Friends of friends. Yes, a lot of time they go through the sham of announcing and collecting applications but the fix is in and no one objects because squeaky wheels in IT often become unemployed. It's not just Blizzard; it's everywhere. Who you know is often what tips the balance; not what you know. The many posters here who loudly bellow about how objectionable it is not to be chosen on qualifications apparently have no idea that this is the norm, not the exception.

[Aleksej89]

No, considering things such as sex/gender/race/culture/religion/whatever as POSITIVE traits when trying to foster diversity due to the fact that those traits were often considered NEGATIVES in the not too distant past is 1000% NOT "genuine racist/sexist/whateverist". I'm getting tired of seeing this absolutely moronic argument time and time again, so please try to drill this into your thick, dense skull: focusing on increasing the inclusion of marginalized and underrepresented groups is NOT racism/sexism/etc.

Racism/sexism would be exclusion based on those qualities, not inclusion in order to counteract decades of actual racism/sexism.

The idea that these sorts of hiring practices just lead to tokenism is one of the major hurdles that needs to be crossed. It's a dangerous lie to think that more diversity means hiring unqualified individuals, or that those individuals have no value beyond their sex or the color of their skin.

There is no magical amount of extra created jobs or school slots that you generate for improving diversity.
You are CHOOSING to give ONE PERSON a spot instead of ANOTHER person BECAUSE of their gender/sex/skin/whatever and DENY the other person the spot because of their gender/skin/sex/whatever.

That is NEVER okay and will NEVER be okay no matter how "good" your intentions are.
There is no such thing as positive racism/sexism.
If you have two candidates who are equally qualified and you make a choice based on their sex/gender/race/culture that is VILE and wrong and should be jail-able.

[Adamas102]

There is no magical amount of extra created jobs or school slots that you generate for improving diversity.
You are CHOOSING to give ONE PERSON a spot instead of ANOTHER person BECAUSE of their gender/sex/skin/whatever and DENY the other person the spot because of their gender/skin/sex/whatever.

That is NEVER okay and will NEVER be okay no matter how "good" your intentions are.
There is no such thing as positive racism/sexism.
If you have two candidates who are equally qualified and you make a choice based on their sex/gender/race/culture that is VILE and wrong and should be jail-able.

You’re right that there is no such thing as “positive racism/sexism” because these are just terms made up by people who don’t understand what racism/sexism is.

While it would certainly be ideal to not have to take into account things such as sex and skin color, that isn’t the position that history has left us in. You can stick your head in the sand all you want but that doesn’t change reality. The effects of having marginalized almost every other demographic to the benefit of one are still felt today. These issues didn’t just disappear as the cultural outlook on sex and race evolved. While it would certainly be easy for people like you and I to just say “hey, things are so much better now, just let everything balance out over the next several generations” that’s a pretty lazy and frankly reprehensible way of addressing the effects that decades of actual discrimination have had on our current workforce demographics.

As much as you’d like to think it all self corrects, not making an effort to focus on those marginalized groups will just ensure that things like “frat cultures” and “good ol’ boys” clubs remain commonplace in areas like upper management and the tech industry. Again, it’s not racism/sexism because it doesn’t devalue anyone based on those qualities (no matter how much you try to twist it into that mentality).

[tomolak]

well thats the point, why are you so concerned about going from one form of non-meritocracy to another? equity is better than non-equity, all else being equal.

Equity is another word for tokenism. It is not better than anything, except perhaps putting a thousand monkeys on the comps and expecting them to produce coherent code.

[Aleksej89]

.

You are devaluing and penalizing people that belong to a certain sex/color/culture/gender/religion group through no fault of their own, simply because they were born that way.
Just like many groups were penalized decades and centuries and millennia ago.

Two wrongs never make a right.

By favoring people based on something they are born with you are generating an enormous amount of discontent and resentment from every other group.
This will have catastrophic long term consequences because any person who belongs to these favored groups will always be looked down upon as "diversity hire" and not as someone equal who has actually earned their place through skill and merit.
You are also sending a hideously wrong message to the young people in these minority groups that the world owes them something and that they need special treatment because of their skin color/sex/gender/whatever.

Not to mention the sheer racist lunacy of bunching up people into generalized groups (such as "whites"), because by the same enforced diversity logic some people like Slavs should be entitled to as much favored support as any marginalized/minority group but they will never get it because their skin color happens to be white which is the same as the "privileged" nations.

Diversity hire and enforcing diversity in general will go down in history as one of the most disastrous social concepts, just like the old "Separate but equal" US doctrine.

[rrayy]

Equity: the quality of being fair and impartial, i.e. "equity of treatment"

Whatever you think that is, it is it's not socialism.

Forced equity is. Specifically demanding a woman be hired for a job because she is a woman is. As for your part about capitalism and shy a socialist as in investor would be trying to help a capitalist company, they don't make their money practicing what they preach. They absolutely do take full advantage of the same capitalism they scream against.

[rhorle]

Forced equity is. Specifically demanding a woman be hired for a job because she is a woman is. As for your part about capitalism and shy a socialist as in investor would be trying to help a capitalist company, they don't make their money practicing what they preach. They absolutely do take full advantage of the same capitalism they scream against.

So then they are not a socialist investment group. But a capitalist investment group that wants to see equity and fair pay. Weird how you defeat your own argument. That is usually what happens when you cling to incorrect terms at all costs instead of just doing a little thinking. Their biggest motive seems to be taking a bigger stand against sexual harassment and the "slap on the wrist" punishment executives get.

But then you would know about their McDonald's complaints from your "extensive research" you've done on the group right?

[Eggroll]

Lol, all those sexists whining about equity.

1. Hiring was never impartial or objective to begin with. If you are thinking this, you are living in a dream world.
2. So you think it was fair to hire an all male staff, insinuating women are incompetent by default. Yeah, right, and that's not sexist?

[procne]

1. Hiring was never impartial or objective to begin with. If you are thinking this, you are living in a dream world.
2. So you think it was fair to hire an all male staff, insinuating women are incompetent by default. Yeah, right, and that's not sexist?

Who are you even talking to? Who was "thinking" what you were talking about?

[Eggroll]

Who are you even talking to? Who was "thinking" what you were talking about?

Just read the comments whining about how hiring more women means that they will not get hired based on merit but because they are women.

[Berndorf]

So then they are not a socialist investment group. But a capitalist investment group that wants to see equity and fair pay. Weird how you defeat your own argument. That is usually what happens when you cling to incorrect terms at all costs instead of just doing a little thinking. Their biggest motive seems to be taking a bigger stand against sexual harassment and the "slap on the wrist" punishment executives get.

But then you would know about their McDonald's complaints from your "extensive research" you've done on the group right?

You guys are making this about socialism/capitalism when it has absolutely nothing to do with either. This is business. They(the investors) want Bliz to be profitable in the long run which means regaining public confidence in their(AB's) image and also making a better workplace for thousands of disgruntled employees. What they don't want is AB making decisions in a way to try and deflect accountability or sweep things under the rug which don't actually address the problems which puts the company further at risk in the future. That's all there is to it. Long term profitability and real change so these same problems don't pop up again in the future and employees are happy to work there.

[Eosia]

Are you sure you are a share holder? cause if you were you would know bobby has done nothing but make YOU loads of money by drastically increasing the share value of the company since he took lead.

Yes. I am a shareholder.

Remember the time when WoW was the cash cow? It subsidized development for 5 other games, three of which added more revenue streams. Then the philosophy turned to every game had to have a satisfactory revenue. Period. What Bobby has done is no different then when retail stores cut employee hours when sales are thought to be slow. Yeah, it makes some numbers look better potentially but those numbers mean shit in the grand scheme of things because they're robbing long term profit and survival for short-term gain. But ultimately it tanks the investment because the business either dies or gets bought out by someone who bleeds it dry. Ironically that is what Bobby is doing when he saved ActivisionBlizzard from being drained by Vivendi.

Oh, and FYI - Bobby hasn't made me anything. My ROI on my Activision Blizzard stock is -8.56% as of writing this. I also voted in the last election. It was symbolic, but I voted against Bobby when I sent in my proxy.

[Adamas102]

You are devaluing and penalizing people that belong to a certain sex/color/culture/gender/religion group through no fault of their own, simply because they were born that way.
Just like many groups were penalized decades and centuries and millennia ago.

This statement is absolutely ludicrous and completely disconnected from both history and reality.

As a whole, educated white men are still going to have very few issues landing good jobs. We simply won't be benefiting AS MUCH from the massive amount of privilege that generations of dominance have given us. For generations to come, we'll still be giving our children a better leg up in life than non-whites in this country.

By favoring people based on something they are born with you are generating an enormous amount of discontent and resentment from every other group.
This will have catastrophic long term consequences because any person who belongs to these favored groups will always be looked down upon as "diversity hire" and not as someone equal who has actually earned their place through skill and merit.

This is a personal issue, not one with the system, since it stems from ignorance of the historical effects of actual discrimination along with the misconception that marginalized groups now have it easy and increased diversity only leads to unqualified token hires. The current reality still greatly favors white people, males more than females, for things like executive positions and technical studies/work. Our disproportional representation at the top isn't going to disappear overnight, and if no efforts are made to increase diversity it won't disappear at all.

But of course your only concern is the resentment over having some of our privilege stripped from us, rather than the resentment of what centuries of discrimination have caused. So I guess we should continue to enjoy our favored position because trying to elevate anyone else will just lead to catastrophe? Please...

You are also sending a hideously wrong message to the young people in these minority groups that the world owes them something and that they need special treatment because of their skin color/sex/gender/whatever.

That's where you're wrong. They ARE owed something, and "special treatment" doesn't preclude the need for people to still work hard and earn necessary qualifications. You and I might not be responsible for how our ancestors treated their ancestors, but the effects of that treatment are still prevalent today.

Not to mention the sheer racist lunacy of bunching up people into generalized groups (such as "whites"), because by the same enforced diversity logic some people like Slavs should be entitled to as much favored support as any marginalized/minority group but they will never get it because their skin color happens to be white which is the same as the "privileged" nations.

This is the only legitimate argument you've made and it certainly is a weakness in how we view diversity given our country's history in mostly boiling it down to outward appearance. However, it still comes down to whether you do nothing because no perfect solution has presented itself, or you do something to at least curb some of the effects that a long history of discrimination have saddled us with.

Diversity hire and enforcing diversity in general will go down in history as one of the most disastrous social concepts, just like the old "Separate but equal" US doctrine.

Yeah, that's simply not true. We're still a long way off from equity in opportunity, and that's a goal that will never be reached without making an effort on improving diversity from the top down.

[rhorle]

Oh, and FYI - Bobby hasn't made me anything. My ROI on my Activision Blizzard stock is -8.56% as of writing this. I also voted in the last election. It was symbolic, but I voted against Bobby when I sent in my proxy.

So you bought in when it was a high because of the increase brought about under the reign of Mr. Kotick. In 2013 around the time Activision Blizzard gained their independence the stock was only worth around $12. It is now trading at $85 after a high of $100 around the January of this year. You can't deny that he helped make the share holders a ton of money. The last upward trend started in 2019 after the stock dipped to $45.

[Aleksej89]

.

Your intentions may be good but instead of fixing the root issues you are focused on QUICK fixing the flashy visible surface with a band-aid that makes you feel so righteous and warm.

The core reasons why these underprivileged groups are suffering (education, social care, crime/safety, medical access, harmful values in a culture etc etc) need to be solved and yet not one corporation, media or politician gives a damn.
Everyone talks about diversity because it nets political points and views (money) on the internet/media.
These underprivileged still are born and raised in hellholes and no one is doing anything meaningful to fix it.
Even all these BLM and similar movements have done NOTHING to improve impoverished neighborhoods despite receiving billions in donations.

Diversity hire is a farce that was cooked up just to farm PR points, there is not an ounce of honesty in it.
If you talk to honest psychologists/sociologists "behind closed doors" (where pitchfork mobs cant reach to cancel them) you will learn why its a hideously flawed idea that was never even conceived as a honest truthful movement.

I would love if there was zero difference in privilege amongst people.
But such an achievement requires incredibly well thought out reworks of the whole socioeconomic system, and not some band-aid based on skin and genital junk.
Forced diversity hire is one of the wrongest ways of doing it, it fixes nothing and it will cause significant issues in both short term and long term.

And FYI i live in eastern europe so i will never in my life see any of this white privilege that i am supposedly enjoying all my life, so its not like im trying to keep all this phat privilege to myself.
Do note how you assumed my white ancestors abused some minorities (despite the fact that MY ancestors never even left the balkans) and how you assumed that i wanted to keep the privilege to myself (of which i have none).

You yourself already sorted me into the privileged class while by your own diversity standards i should belong in the underprivileged class (the same you are trying to help and favor).
If that does not show you how insanely flawed, bigoted and prejudiced all this judging based on skin/sex is then absolutely nothing will and talks about this are pointless.

[FelPlague]

Yes. I am a shareholder.

Remember the time when WoW was the cash cow? It subsidized development for 5 other games, three of which added more revenue streams. Then the philosophy turned to every game had to have a satisfactory revenue. Period. What Bobby has done is no different then when retail stores cut employee hours when sales are thought to be slow. Yeah, it makes some numbers look better potentially but those numbers mean shit in the grand scheme of things because they're robbing long term profit and survival for short-term gain. But ultimately it tanks the investment because the business either dies or gets bought out by someone who bleeds it dry. Ironically that is what Bobby is doing when he saved ActivisionBlizzard from being drained by Vivendi.

Oh, and FYI - Bobby hasn't made me anything. My ROI on my Activision Blizzard stock is -8.56% as of writing this. I also voted in the last election. It was symbolic, but I voted against Bobby when I sent in my proxy.

Do you not consider 8 years "long term" if not then what is "long term" to you? cause blizzard has gone up and up and up over the last 8 years since he joined, and if you think he is only "cutting long term profits for short turn gain' then idk man.

[Eosia]

So you bought in when it was a high because of the increase brought about under the reign of Mr. Kotick. In 2013 around the time Activision Blizzard gained their independence the stock was only worth around $12. It is now trading at $85 after a high of $100 around the January of this year. You can't deny that he helped make the share holders a ton of money. The last upward trend started in 2019 after the stock dipped to $45.

No company owes its profits to the CEOs. Let's say I bought my stock back in 2013 when Activision Blizzard was spun out of Vivendi. No decisions he made, actions he took, etc. made me that money. I'll use retail again as an example. Who makes the money for a retail store? Certainly not the CEO. It's the cashiers/sales people who do. If we extend it to Amazon, Jeff Bezos isn't earning all the money for Amazon, it's the salves that he and his partners grind through in the delivery "partners" and his own plantations.. er I mean warehouses that are earning the money while peeing in bottles, terrified an algorithm is going to fire them via email, and generally being treated like crap.

So it would have been the developers would have been the ones who made me that money. Not some grand decision(s) Bobby made.

[rhorle]

No company owes its profits to the CEOs. Let's say I bought my stock back in 2013 when Activision Blizzard was spun out of Vivendi. No decisions he made, actions he took, etc. made me that money.

Who do you think decide to buy the independence? Is he the sole reason? No. But the captain is responsible for steering the ship even if it is the deck hands doing the grunt work. You are just trying push an anti-ceo ideology while ignoring the pay offs. Which is silly when you are profiting off of all those "slaves" right? That is the entire reason why people invest. To make money.

Unless you are a member of WSB/SuperStonk where losses are king.

[NihilSustinet]

Equity is another word for tokenism. It is not better than anything, except perhaps putting a thousand monkeys on the comps and expecting them to produce coherent code.

That's not entirely true, though. There is value to be found in people's varying upbringings, cultures, socio-economic status. There isn't a whole lot of variety in thought coming from a bunch of trust fund white boys who grew up in the same social circles, lives in the same rich white neighborhoods, went to the same elite private schools, and were educated in the same private business schools. I'm not saying that those kinds of people arent valuable to have, they are, if only for their connections, but other people, even if they dont have the same "elite" education, can bring a lot more to the table.

[tomolak]

That's not entirely true, though. There is value to be found in people's varying upbringings, cultures, socio-economic status. There isn't a whole lot of variety in thought coming from a bunch of trust fund white boys who grew up in the same social circles, lives in the same rich white neighborhoods, went to the same elite private schools, and were educated in the same private business schools. I'm not saying that those kinds of people arent valuable to have, they are, if only for their connections, but other people, even if they dont have the same "elite" education, can bring a lot more to the table.

If they're only hired BECAUSE of their race, culture, economic status, they're worthless. Just like, for example, SCOTUS doesn't benefit from a "wise Latina," it benefits from judges who can quote the Constitution if woken up in the middle of the night.