Patch 5.2 interview with Dave Kosak
Inside an old alt's vault
The latest patch 5.2 news
All of the latest Mists of Pandaria newsIs Bobby Kotick bad for Blizzard?
by Mike Schramm 
Jan 22nd 2009 at 3:00PM
Yesterday, when we wrote about Blizzard's mistakes in patch 3.0.8, I made very sure to stay away from any mention of Activision. Call me naive, but I still don't think the Activision-Blizzard relationship has yet affected how Blizzard conducts business -- Blizzard's mistake of releasing the patch before it was ready was, in my mind, all their own. But not everyone feels that way (just read the comments on yesterday's post), and Ben Kuchera of Ars Technica will go a step further: he's calling Activision-Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick out for caring more about how much money his games make rather than how good they are.We've talked about Kotick here before, and we've got him saying both that Activision will leave Blizzard alone and that they'll be seeking additional revenues where they can get them. But Kuchera isn't so balanced -- he's ready to pin Blizzard's decisions, including the idea to cut Starcraft II up into three different games, and the pending monetization of Battle.net on Activision's influence. And the last nail in the coffin is Kotick's recent profile in Forbes, which apparently had the writer calling Rock Band a "knock-off" of Activision's Guitar Hero (even though history says otherwise, since Harmonix, without Activision, created both franchises).
But that gets a little too far into non-Blizzard territory for us. Kuchera finishes by saying that there's two forces at work in Azeroth: "the loyalty of [WoW's] players" and "Kotick's cash lust." And he questions what will happen when the two finally face off. Which is basically what we've been saying for a long time. But the question so far is whether that's happened or not. Have Activision and Kotick pushed Blizzard to make the Starcraft II and Battle.net decisions, or is Blizzard making all of these choices on their own?
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Virtual selves, Blizzard, Expansions, Making money
Reader Comments (Page 2 of 3)
Saker Jan 22nd 2009 3:27PM
I'm probably being a little naive, but how does a non-content patch generate revenue? I mean, yes, a CEO's job is to make as much money as possible for their company, but I doubt any new players were brought on as a result of 3.08.
Murchadha Jan 22nd 2009 3:46PM
I agree. I seriously doubt the CEO pushed for an early release date of a free patch. Some of the other changes at Blizzard probably can be traced back to the change in ownership. Things like paid name changes, paid sex changes, loot cards. It sort of bugs me that cool things like Bananas the monkey pet can only be got by buying cards for a card game I don't play. I always wanted a monkey.
On a side note, how much do you think that guy paid for his hair? Man he looks like a tool.
Mark Jan 22nd 2009 4:22PM
He does it by insisting on reductions in expensive testing/QA. "Push the patch out, stop spending all that expensive time revisiting things we know already works" that is the mantra of all new financial guys, from airlines to roads to games. Put less money into the things that don't "affect" the bottom line, and spend the money saved on ads to counteract the bad press you are getting from having things not working right.
korruptor Jan 22nd 2009 3:29PM
Blizzard is growing so much on its money tree it needed some help to re-strengthen its base for more expansion and Activision was a suitable partner as agreed by both sides of the table.
As long as Blizzard/Activision doesn't turn into a money grubbing company like EA (they release a game let it ride for a year release 1 or 2 patches/updates then make a marketed and hyped part 2 and abandon the first game to keep the money rolling in) I'm ok with it. If Activision is smart it will stay the hell out of Blizzard's way at least until some fancy Board of Directors give into to their innate greed.
W Jan 22nd 2009 3:31PM
I think to say that activision isn't pulling any of blizzard's strings is a little too optomistic. No doubt someone, most likely blizzard, made a lot of money signing the deal with activision. If activision spent so much money on blizzard, did they really pay all that money just to slap their name on the box? i highly doubt it...
Blizzard's chain of command used to end with a blizzard employee, but not anymore.
Xaro Jan 22nd 2009 3:37PM
http://graphjam.com/2008/10/28/song-chart-memes-first-in-the-comments/
Judicius Jan 22nd 2009 3:43PM
For the sake of argument, lets assume that Blizz is making these decisions of their own volition and outside of activisions perview.
The Question not tackled in this article is why.
Why monetize battle.net and effectively throwing the original concept of free online play away?
Why, as Blizzard, split Starcraft II up into three entities?
Solo Jan 22nd 2009 4:06PM
Hmm World of Warcraft is a MULTI-BILLION dollar franchise. Was one before Vivendi, was one before Activision. Will be one after. If the CEO of Activision isn't stupid he should just shrug his shoulders and say: "Oh those are those Blizzard people" when he see's people in Night Elf and Orc costumes running around the office. Basically turn a blind eye to everything they until Blizzard starts losing money. Warcraft is so profitable that they can EPICally fail with Diablo 3, Starcraft 2 and still survive handlely.
computermachina Jan 22nd 2009 3:45PM
Man wowinsider is really crying over this patch. Patching a mmo really never get easier even with the experience Blizzard has as it almost always involves adding, subtracting or changing elements of the game that affects millions of people at once. Im sure any long time fan will tell you we have been subject to many a crummy patch before and this is no different. So sit back max out that cooking or fishing you always put off and relax.
Limeburgos Jan 22nd 2009 4:13PM
Agreed. I remember back in vanilla WoW when Blizzard was giving players "Free Days" all the time because the servers were down so much.
I dont think any of the Higher-Ups in Activision had anything to do with 3.08. The fault lies with Blizzard and the WoW community it self. To many people crying about the patch and Blizzard wanting to get to work on patch 3.1.
As for monetizing Battle.net I'll start getting pissed off when they start charging ME for it. If they want to get some ad-revenue going to counter balance the cost of keeping the servers running, thats fine by me.
Xigageshi Jan 22nd 2009 4:06PM
yes blizzard split up starcraft II and made pve easier because they're greedy, its not at all likely they did it to PROVIDE A BETTER GAME EXPERIENCE FOR MORE PLAYERS.
the former is clearly the more likely. :P
/facepalm
Sean Riley Jan 22nd 2009 4:31PM
Really? You think that dividing up the game was a pure gameplay decision?
Because I gotta say, I think the business people may have driven that one.
Xigageshi Jan 22nd 2009 4:51PM
yes sean I do think it was gameplay driven. look at it this way, if blizzard had waited until wrath was ready to release World of warcraft, Burning crusade AND wrath all at the same time, we wouldn't have had a game to play or discuss on this website for 4 years.
its all a matter of content vs time to develop if blizzard was originally going to provide 30missions with 10 for each faction, but is now going to provide 30 missions FOR EACH FACTION, which is what the stated intent has been, then it seems to me that we aren't losing anything, and infact stand to gain a great deal.
Big Bear Butt Jan 22nd 2009 4:08PM
I know it's a minor point, but for the sake of accuracy, I'd like to point out that Bobby Kotick did NOT call Rock Band a knockoff in the Forbes article.
No, if you read the Forbes article you will clearly see that the writer of the article itself made that claim, all on his own and without a damn peep out of Kotick.
Call Kotick to account for his decisions, by all means, but let's not continue blaming him for stuff he didn't actually do.
Instead, blame the editor of Forbes for not ensuring the writer of the article presented a bit more fact behind his personal biases.
lbizzle Jan 22nd 2009 4:28PM
Agree, I've been taking this view when wotlk came out, unfinished, before Christmas. Dual specs would have made it into the first release if Blizzard were still in total control imo
Xigageshi Jan 22nd 2009 4:56PM
are you kidding? why don't you go back to the old pre beta patch notes for the original game.
features in any game like wow get pushed back ALL THE TIME.
for instance, in the original wow beta, mages had invisibility, it took them upwards of 2 years to give it back to mages, and with changes to boot.
if you look up the original wow manual, it states that griefing players costs you reputation with your faction, eventually resulting in you not being able to enter your own factions towns.
also in that druids could wield polearms, which at the time were called "spears"
games change, its not an economic decision beyond the obvious decision that, if you wait until everything is exactly as you want it, it would NEVER be released.
Arkeband Jan 22nd 2009 4:31PM
Let's not forget dance studios!
Dewey Jan 22nd 2009 4:43PM
In spite of the QQ from wannabe l33t players, Blizzard has always wanted more people to have access to the story of WoW, and the most important story moments most often take place in raids. It makes perfect sense to make raids more accessible if you're a game designer who wants more people to get the chance to appreciate your hard work instead of some no life gamer with a burning need to be better than everyone else in an imaginary world.
AToomah Jan 22nd 2009 4:44PM
While I won't say that this is DIRECTLY Kotick's fault...Does anyone else here remember the Blizzard that pushed back Diablo II's patch 1.10 for, what, a year? two? to have it perfected before release? The Blizz that ended Ghost for it's lack of being the best Shooter ever, like DII was the best hack'n'slash action-RPG and Starcraft(/Warcraft) the best RTS? And created the most successful (and yes, probably the best) MMORPG ever? When would pre-Activision Blizz have EVER said the words "well, it's not finished, but that's what hotfixes are for"? And that's to say nothing of this SC2 3-game BS. I'm sad to be seeing what is likely the beginning of the end of, seriously, the highest-quality games ever made, all at the hands of the makers of some of the worst, poor-sequel-ridden, awful-storyline, putrescent PoS games to ever be released...Guess there's always Bioware...Oh, wait...
Warpaw Jan 22nd 2009 4:55PM
Someone needs to make a petition to fire this worthless piece of slime.