Blizzard Entertainment Welcomes Jessica Martinez as Vice President Head of Culture

[Gumble]

What I was getting at is in terms of a wide spectrum of perspectives. A group of "sweaty nerds" likely has a significant volume of overlap in terms of perspective. As such, there's less potential room to innovate. To use a gaming example, if a group of people is making, say, a MOBA, and everyone on the team has sunken hundreds to thousands of hours into the genre, then it's not entirely unrealistic to presume that the end result will be a game that doesn't significantly branch out from the genre's staples. However, sprinkle in a few people that have barely touched the genre and only know about the most basic of concepts, and there's potential to pull out ideas that otherwise wouldn't have even been thought of.

Don't get me wrong, a group that's wholly familiar with the type of content they're creating should be wholly capable of still pushing out solid titles, but it potentially causes stagnation if that becomes the MO for dev teams.

Certainly possible, however I've noticed (and I can't say that I'm alone here), that the more "diverse" and "inclusive" companies become, the more their products seem to become stagnant and uninteresting.

Blizzard when it was less diverse produced Warcraft 3, World of Warcraft, Starcraft, Diablo 2, etc.

Blizzard now, produces stuff like Shadowlands, and their only successes are letting people play classic versions of games that were actually good.


Frankly, I've yet to see a single media company that embraced diversity and inclusivity and their products got BETTER, which maybe suggests that those things are actually INVERSE to producing a good product. Which, while weird to consider, may have more correlation than people give it credit for.

[regardoz]

Oh yeah, you figured it out. It's definitely woke culture that's impacting movie ticket sales and theme park attendance. Yep. 100% woke culture. There definitely isn't any other possible explanation for their decline. Nope. None whatsoever. Just woke culture.

Its clear you make fun of his comment, and how biased you are like you are payed to defend this woke crap, bro seriously with all respect put your time on something else cause you just dont want to declare that all companies lose alot of money for having this woke crap

[Chilela]

Certainly possible, however I've noticed (and I can't say that I'm alone here), that the more "diverse" and "inclusive" companies become, the more their products seem to become stagnant and uninteresting.

Blizzard when it was less diverse produced Warcraft 3, World of Warcraft, Starcraft, Diablo 2, etc.

Blizzard now, produces stuff like Shadowlands, and their only successes are letting people play classic versions of games that were actually good.


Frankly, I've yet to see a single media company that embraced diversity and inclusivity and their products got BETTER, which maybe suggests that those things are actually INVERSE to producing a good product. Which, while weird to consider, may have more correlation than people give it credit for.

Ironically, the fact that every big company is basically chasing the exact same endgoal is probably why this is. While they're all more or less going for a wider representation of races, gender identities, etc., it seems like they become more eager to push out people who are outwardly critical of such beliefs. The games industry in particular is a particularly egregious example. Since most of the industry is within a handful of degrees of networking connection to just about everyone, it's very easy for someone to get displaced for going against the commonly-accepted norm. Openly-conservative devs are relatively few and far between, presumably due to this and the fact that the culture that cultivates such individuals tends to have less focus on tech skill-related upbringing.

I think the big issue with gauging the success (or lack thereof) of diversity in execution is the difficulty of determining whether results are because of, or in spite of diverse workforces. In WoW's case, something like pushing for free sex changes at the barber shop (Good!) was most likely in no small part due to influence of the trans community. Similarly, the changes to accessibility options were likely, to some degree, a result of some degree of disability knowledge in the games industry, firsthand or otherwise. However, it's also resulted in a multitude of changes in the game over the years, with 9.1.5 being the biggest example. Past that, you get into more abstract things such as the technical changes to the game over the years (sharding, increasing draw distance, quality of artistic aspects, etc.), where you can't really tell one way or another.

At the end of the day, though, it all comes down to personal taste, and in my own view, the "Diversity makes better games" crowd still needs to actually prove their assertion correct.

[Jester Joe]

At the end of the day, though, it all comes down to personal taste, and in my own view, the "Diversity makes better games" crowd still needs to actually prove their assertion correct.

Or this whole mindset of "I WANT GAMES, NOT EQUALITY" needs to stop.

It's a weird kinda idea to think that diversity needs to be proven to be better when in reality, it's usually about making the workplace better for people who were treated like trash.

So the idea that the value of making people feel like they matter needs to be justified is just plain out disgusting.

[Celement]

Or this whole mindset of "I WANT GAMES, NOT EQUALITY" needs to stop.

It's a weird kinda idea to think that diversity needs to be proven to be better when in reality, it's usually about making the workplace better for people who were treated like trash.

So the idea that the value of making people feel like they matter needs to be justified is just plain out disgusting.

I mean I want games...

Equality is kind of a pointless expense when it comes to making games. If they are the best candidate they should get the job. The second you deviate from that you instantly made an inferior choice.

I don't really care who works for blizzard I care about the quality of product blizzard produces. That might make me monstrous but frankly I find it bizzare to start with that people look to corporations for morality.

[Jester Joe]

Equality is kind of a pointless expense when it comes to making games. If they are the best candidate they should get the job. The second you deviate from that you instantly made an inferior choice.

I don't really care who works for blizzard I care about the quality of product blizzard produces. That might make me monstrous but frankly I find it bizzare to start with that people look to corporations for morality.

Then you'd be part of the problem. It's as simple as that.

And it's weird to think it's about looking to companies for morality and not expecting companies to have basic morals in the first place.

Not to mention this whole thing is always nonsense when people have to fall back to "b-b-but the best hire!!!". If the candidate is that good, they're going to take them anyway. Or are you missing the fact that Blizzard is making positions to be more equal rather than replacing people? Outside of, you know, the people who were sex offenders

[GratsDing45]

Or this whole mindset of "I WANT GAMES, NOT EQUALITY" needs to stop.

It's a weird kinda idea to think that diversity needs to be proven to be better when in reality, it's usually about making the workplace better for people who were treated like trash.

So the idea that the value of making people feel like they matter needs to be justified is just plain out disgusting.

Why dont companies like Square Enix or FromSoft have bad workplace environments or we don't hear about them? I don't think those companies are very diverse.
I'm not sure why people have such a hard on for diversity. You can make a good working environment without it. Maybe it has to do with work ethic and culture and skill. The idea that Blizzard is way more diverse so they are now a great place to work is hilarious.

[korijenkins]

Would be better if they promoted up from within rather than hiring from outside. Reward the hard working (oft abused) employees. Hell, there are women who were in the abuse who work at Blizzard now. Why not them? Surely they're more qualified to address the problem given they experienced it.

But nah, bring in some random from Disney.

[Jester Joe]

Why dont companies like Square Enix or FromSoft have bad workplace environments or we don't hear about them? I don't think those companies are very diverse.
I'm not sure why people have such a hard on for diversity. You can make a good working environment without it. Maybe it has to do with work ethic and culture and skill. The idea that Blizzard is way more diverse so they are now a great place to work is hilarious.

And yet you have a company like Riot who fell into a similar position as Blizzard a while back, and now they're still held in high standards while also rapidly doing more to move away from just resting on their laurels of LoL and pumping out more games and even a show that was considered a massive success.

So how about you don't try to deflect?

[Celement]

Then you'd be part of the problem. It's as simple as that.

And it's weird to think it's about looking to companies for morality and not expecting companies to have basic morals in the first place.

Not to mention this whole thing is always nonsense when people have to fall back to "b-b-but the best hire!!!". If the candidate is that good, they're going to take them anyway. Or are you missing the fact that Blizzard is making positions to be more equal rather than replacing people? Outside of, you know, the people who were sex offenders

I think that if you are looking at soulless vapid and often criminal corporations for moral guidance... well I think you are rather confused.

What does more equal without replacing people mean in english and not buzzspeak?

[Jester Joe]

I think that if you are looking at soulless vapid and often criminal corporations for moral guidance... well I think you are rather confused.

What does more equal without replacing people mean in english and not buzzspeak?

I think you're not even reading what was said then.

Almost as if I said, "don't look at companies for morals, expect them to follow morals though".

But hey, keep on keeping on. Seems like you're confused.

[Celement]

I think you're not even reading what was said then.

Almost as if I said, "don't look at companies for morals, expect them to follow morals though".

But hey, keep on keeping on. Seems like you're confused.

Alright and the rest of it?

I get snappy comebacks are fun but you are really struggling to make your point. Are they hiring on extra positions to fill with less qualified candidates to make them " equal" or creating bloat to justify them?

As a consumer why would I praise either move since my investment in all of this only goes so far as getting the best product possible?

[GratsDing45]

And yet you have a company like Riot who fell into a similar position as Blizzard a while back, and now they're still held in high standards while also rapidly doing more to move away from just resting on their laurels of LoL and pumping out more games and even a show that was considered a massive success.

So how about you don't try to deflect?

Why are you simping for 2 scummy companies?

[Jester Joe]

Alright and the rest of it?

I get snappy comebacks are fun but you are really struggling to make your point. Are they hiring on extra positions to fill with less qualified candidates to make them " equal" or creating bloat to justify them?

As a consumer why would I praise either move since my investment in all of this only goes so far as getting the best product possible?

You really can't talk about "Snappy comebacks" when your entire initial post was a straight up strawman.

Not only did you literally misinterpret what I said intentionally, but you tried to push some weird idea that "making new positions and hiring new people" as a "buzzword".

And on top of that, now you're trying to push the idea that hiring diversity means "less qualified". So why would I engage in that when it's clearly loaded with bias to begin with?

Why are you simping for 2 scummy companies?

Oh sure, pointing out how those scummy companies needed to change drastically and how this is a good thing is "simping".

So why aren't you going after the people saying Blizzard should be allowed to continue said scummy behavior instead?

[Chilela]

Or this whole mindset of "I WANT GAMES, NOT EQUALITY" needs to stop.

The two aren't inherently mutually exclusive. Also, equality != equity.

It's a weird kinda idea to think that diversity needs to be proven to be better when in reality, it's usually about making the workplace better for people who were treated like trash.

1. When "Diversity makes better products" is one of the primary selling points of DEI in the first place, the burden of proof is on the companies practicing it, and it makes the quality of products relevant in the eyes of those consuming it. Hence, why you see critics of it point to media that flops as a result of implementing such policies, regardless of whether or not they're actually legitimately at fault.

2. Most DEI critics are fine with not treating people like garbage, but generally frown down upon the concept of walking on eggshells to not be seen as offensive, or giving preferential treatment at any point in the hiring process, whether through knowing someone within the company and getting the foot in the door that way, through an employee placement program that specializes in assisting certain groups of people, or other means.

Not to mention this whole thing is always nonsense when people have to fall back to "b-b-but the best hire!!!". If the candidate is that good, they're going to take them anyway.

Few people are arguing against this as a hiring practice. But when conscious positive bias comes into play, it's not wholly unreasonable to suspect it to be a factor in someone's hiring, regardless of whether or not it actually was. Going back to the original post, Martinez at least has a fairly extensive portfolio, so I have little reason to presume she wasn't hired based off actual merit, rather than as a "Hey, look how progressive we are" hire, even with Blizzard's track record of doing so.

[Celement]

You really can't talk about "Snappy comebacks" when your entire initial post was a straight up strawman.

Not only did you literally misinterpret what I said intentionally, but you tried to push some weird idea that "making new positions and hiring new people" as a "buzzword".

And on top of that, now you're trying to push the idea that hiring diversity means "less qualified". So why would I engage in that when it's clearly loaded with bias to begin with?



Oh sure, pointing out how those scummy companies needed to change drastically and how this is a good thing is "simping".

So why aren't you going after the people saying Blizzard should be allowed to continue said scummy behavior instead?

First you didn't say new people you said making positions more equal that isn't terribly clear.

Hiring for diversity when you specifically search it out especially in highly technical fields is almost a guarantee you are passing over more skilled applicants.

Your argument is an emotional one. Your frustration right now is that you are coming against a logical argument and you don't want to engage with it.

[Gadzooks]

What gets me is that Blizz seems to be gung-ho about there being fanfare about every hire in a position such as this one. They did it with two earlier DEI-related hires over the past couple of months too.

There's a fairly obvious answer here - they settled a fairly large Federal lawsuit and are still involved in a fairly significant lawsuit with the State of California. Part of their agreement with the Feds was to hire for positions like this, and if/when the state suit is settled/resolved, they have someone already in place to fulfill any agreements or requirements from the state as well.

From a purely executive PR perspective, you absolutely put out a press release for this hire. It's a no-brainer.

If you read the EEOC settlement, they will be bringing in a third party internally to Activision-Blizzard/ATVI to oversee that they make the changes the Fed wants. I would bet quite a bit, if you look at the reporting and data gathering aspects of that agreement, that this new position will be working directly with that third party, and will be overseeing all of the data collection and reporting mentioned. To comply with just the EEOC agreement, they have to create a new department. HR would be swamped.

Agreement: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/court-...ision-blizzard

I would bet King and Activision's studios will also have people in positions like hers, reporting up the chain of command. Making her VP bypasses most of the org chart in terms of being able to operate freely, and will probably report directly to Ybarra, and to someone higher up in MS, possibly. She might also report directly to Kristen Hines, who was hired as chief diversity officer of ATVI as a whole. (I haven't looked, I but I would bet MS has a "culture" executive. It's the new executive suite hot job. It will ease the transition to MS when/if the deal goes through.)

You can blame 'woke" all you want, but it's shitheads like Afrasiabi that led to this.

But, you know, don't let me disrupt the "no girls allowed" gang's parade in this thread. I could say a lot about that, but none will listen, anyway, and it's less mess for the mods to clean up.

[Jester Joe]

The two aren't inherently mutually exclusive. Also, equality != equity.

And yet you had people in this very thread arguing the very thing, saying that they are.

1. When "Diversity makes better products" is one of the primary selling points of DEI in the first place, the burden of proof is on the companies practicing it, and it makes the quality of products relevant in the eyes of those consuming it. Hence, why you see critics of it point to media that flops as a result of implementing such policies, regardless of whether or not they're actually legitimately at fault.

Except the whole idea of "Get woke go broke", which was on the other end of that idea, hasn't had a point to stand on. So it's weird to demand that they prove anything. Like, the new Star Wars trilogy gets a ton of hate from people because it had "wokeness", and yet it had the largest success of all the trilogies.

2. Most DEI critics are fine with not treating people like garbage, but generally frown down upon the concept of walking on eggshells to not be seen as offensive, or giving preferential treatment at any point in the hiring process, whether through knowing someone within the company and getting the foot in the door that way, through an employee placement program that specializes in assisting certain groups of people, or other means.

Again, we have people in this very thread saying they didn't care if people did sexually harass others as long as the game is fine, and that they should have just reported it.

Despite knowing that it WAS reported and nothing was done.

Few people are arguing against this as a hiring practice. But when conscious positive bias comes into play, it's not wholly unreasonable to suspect it to be a factor in someone's hiring, regardless of whether or not it actually was. Going back to the original post, Martinez at least has a fairly extensive portfolio, so I have little reason to presume she wasn't hired based off actual merit, rather than as a "Hey, look how progressive we are" hire, even with Blizzard's track record of doing so.

How can you mention bias, and then say that it's not unreasonable to suspect it....because of someone's own bias.

And on top of that, we had not even a few months back one of the new leaders for Blizzard was a female, and on these very forums she got nothing but hate despite having an extensive portfolio herself. Meanwhile, no one questioned the male who was chosen.

First you didn't say new people you said making positions more equal that isn't terribly clear.

Hiring for diversity when you specifically search it out especially in highly technical fields is almost a guarantee you are passing over more skilled applicants.

Your argument is an emotional one. Your frustration right now is that you are coming against a logical argument and you don't want to engage with it.

I'd say it's hilarious that you're trying to claim I'm arguing from an emotional point because you have a "logical" argument when not even once have you actually been able to interpret my post honestly. You've been misrepresenting it from the start while trying to claim it's on ME when you're the one just arguing dishonestly.

There's no hope in trying to discuss it with you. I said from the start, companies should be expected to follow morals. You for some reason, said I claimed they should be examples to follow when I said they SHOULDN'T be.

And then after that, I said they were making new positions to ensure they have diversity while also still keeping the talented applicants that people are using as their made up victims of "diversity hires", and now you're going on some parade about how I wasn't clear.

[tromage2]

Go woke go broke!!

I give blizzard 10 more years before it falls apart and the IPs will be sold.
We alrdy see the drop in quality in their games because they shift their focus on random stuff like diversity and equality instead of making good games and givethe money and resources to talents in the gaming industry.

Once the core player base leaves WoW behind this company will be done for like all ofher woke companies that have gone this road.

[GratsDing45]

You really can't talk about "Snappy comebacks" when your entire initial post was a straight up strawman.

Not only did you literally misinterpret what I said intentionally, but you tried to push some weird idea that "making new positions and hiring new people" as a "buzzword".

And on top of that, now you're trying to push the idea that hiring diversity means "less qualified". So why would I engage in that when it's clearly loaded with bias to begin with?



Oh sure, pointing out how those scummy companies needed to change drastically and how this is a good thing is "simping".

So why aren't you going after the people saying Blizzard should be allowed to continue said scummy behavior instead?

Because you are naive enough to think Blizzard has changed drastically. The company hasn't made a good product since Overwatch (I'm not a fan but it was huge). WoW is only still *ok* because it's WoW and still running on the same legacy engines and systems since 2004. But I guess they are better to work for now , I guess? That's what we are being told? But don't listen to me, honestly... I hate new games and don't think Blizzard will make a great game again because the AAA game industry is dead apart from FromSoft and maybe BD5 (which I respect). I really don't like modern video games. And making a company bigger and more diverse isn't gonna make Blizzard a better video game company. It make make it a better place to work and great for them but not for me.

I look at Valheim as a great example of why I think small teams with less ideas getting tossed and cross managed is a good thing.

Riot games was easier for people to regain trust... They don't have as big a legacy. Put out some card games, a shooter and a tv show boom people love you again because all you had was 1 game and it was a huge success. Compared to Blizzard where since D3 people have been let down. It's been up and down since.