Patch 5.3 interview with Ghostcrawler
Mystery of the Unborn Val'kyr
The latest patch 5.3 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 3 of 3)
Xigageshi Jan 22nd 2009 5:06PM
AHAHAHAHAHA
ok you win the internet, best joke ever!
Zoop Jan 22nd 2009 4:56PM
Anyone who thinks Activision has any weight to pull with Blizzard is dumb. Activision was bought by Vivendi, there was no merger or anything. They're lower on the totem pole than Blizzard which is pretty obvious given the name of a single developer is right next to that of an entire publisher in the new name.
Stop being dumb, pretty much everything they've done has had pretty obvious reasons behind them but people like to hand wave those away and go for the conspiracy theories.
Xigageshi Jan 22nd 2009 5:02PM
here here zoop!
which here do you use for that? I'm never sure..
well i'll add "I concur" as well, just to cover my bases
JDM Jan 22nd 2009 5:02PM
@Dewey:
I'm not so sure it was something they "always" wanted, but it's definitely mainstream now. One of the things I read somewhere was that the raids are meant for everyone - it's the raid -achievements- that are for the elitists.
If the raid's too easy, then do it the achievement way - that's the "hard mode". This enables everyone who is interested in raiding a chance at being able to be a part of the game.
Lemons Jan 22nd 2009 5:07PM
Am I to understand Activision wears the pants in the whole Blizz/Activision relationship? If so, I'm surprised that Blizz would give up it's independence, they were doing fine on their own. Hopefully they have some agreement in place that stops idiot CEOs like this retard seems to be from effing around with WoW.
JDM Jan 22nd 2009 5:11PM
It is true that many people are QQing about 3.0.8, but it's not JUST the patch that's causing the problems, it's a trend as of late that all of their patches and server issues have become progressively worse - and it all started on a sharper slope the moment Activision came into the picture.
Now, it might not be Activision's execs/employees behind the problems, it could be several things. Maybe there was a new employee or two at Blizzard itself who made some mistakes. Perhaps there were lapses in judgment among Blizzard execs. Heck, maybe there are several Blizzard employees who are doing their work half-arsed because they're upset over Activision being in on things. Who knows!?
But the fact remains that it ALL got worse than it ever had the moment Activision showed up.
Xigageshi Jan 22nd 2009 5:14PM
good lord man stop beating this dead horse.
the game has gotten progressively BETTER since launch, 302 made some significant changes to the game and just like with the BC patch before it, cause quite a few bumps in the road, but those bumps for BC were by far worse than wraths, and the ones from the original launch were far worse than BC's.
perspective people, don't loose perspective.
SaintStryfe Jan 22nd 2009 7:35PM
I think a lot of players who are newer to the game (after 1.9 say) don't remember how... BAD it was before. Days refunded all the time, ect.
It happens. Get over it. If ya don't like it, go play Pogo games. They have excellent uptime, and should provide plenty of challenge for the impatient.
Psy Jan 22nd 2009 5:30PM
Personally I think it has already happened. I've actually started comparing Blizzard to EA, completely forgetting about the merge with Activision.
So now, remembering this merge, I can now call Activision an Electronic Arts duplicate that is now plaguing Blizzard. It's like what happened to Arthas, only it's friggin real.
I compare Activision to EA because EA are a gigantic monopoly who only care about the money. Their developers are given crap deadlines, crap pay and the games they pump out are all crap and incredibly repetitive to any old games they made. They also buy outs good companies then fire the original developers of said companies.
Activision aren't too bad, but they are milking franchises now. Look at Call of Duty, actually, Call of Duty is a prime example of "milking" a game. If they release a new Call of Duty every year, I won't be surprised (apparently they even announced this, but I can't prove that).
Now Activision are attempting to milk World of Warcraft. First by adding adverts to their forums (those are extremely annoying and I don't feel it justifed to make me not only pay $15 US a month to play WoW but also see crap adverts). Then by releasing patches far too early (I mean sure, I wanted 3.0.8 out but not if it had this many goddamn bugs that Blizzard look like they knew about).
If this keeps up we'll have two gigantic gaming monopolies out there, both wanting more money than the next until either one of them buys the other out or just destroys the opposition.
There are three sides to this "war" of sorts. The question is who will win? Activision, Electronic Arts, or the Gamers?
Dreadskull Jan 22nd 2009 9:09PM
It's too much of a coincidence that we've been getting stuff like the recruit-a-friend changes, PvE->PvP transfers, a (pretty much) rushed WotLK (and patch 3.0.8), advertisements on the forums, and paid character customizations all within five or so months, and all after "Activision Blizzard" was formed.
And those are only the changes to WoW (that and some will probably argue that the more casual tone their bending to now is due to Activision, meh...). I highly doubt whoever's normally in charge of WoW forum stuffs/in-game services decided to go "hey, we could totally make money by doing this!"
Especially since Blizzard's been known for their top-quality games (Diablos, Starcrafts, Warcrafts) while Activision's been falling and coming out with seemingly unfinished games (LotR Conquest is the most recent example) or games that are just like their predecessors, but with a few new things added in (CoD: World at War IMO).
Plastic Rat Jan 22nd 2009 9:17PM
Got to say, Dreadskull has a point. The focus on a more accessible (read: dumbed down) mmo is fairly noticeable. It's just like a suit to go: "We need EVERYONE to want to play our game! PvPers! PvEers, 12 year olds, soccer moms, grandparents even the mentally deficient! Make it appeal to all of them!"
...and thus we end up with the mess that is Wrath end-game. It's pretty, but has no substance. Just like every other over-commercialized game out there right now.
Dreadskull Jan 22nd 2009 9:25PM
I never said that I supported that thought >_>
But probably one problem also with WotLK seemingly having no real end game is due to the fact that with BC there were insane attunements required for endgame raids, and iirc SSC and TK (tier 5) were both in BC when it was released, so there were already two tiers out. And Blizz eventually removed the attunements for the tier five places and toned down the bosses somewhat.
In WotLK there's only one tier, but it's split into heroic and normal tiers. And (from what I've read) it sounds like heroic raids really aren't that tough compared to the normal raids.
And with vanilla WoW... wasn't around during the times before BWL and whatnot weren't in, but I've heard that end game was pretty insane and time consuming as well.
Plastic Rat Jan 23rd 2009 5:18AM
Not saying you supported the point I was making.
I was instead referring to your comment involving time-frames. All of the things that to me have really re-shaped WoW (in my opinion NOT for the better) have been since Activision took over.
I'm just agreeing with you on the timeframe, which you state mostly in the first paragraph of the comment.
As for difficulty, there is very little difference now between a L80 instance, and the same instance on heroic.
fargoon Jan 23rd 2009 10:37AM
Kalgan and the other noobs that QQed a lot in EQ are bad for wow, them and the guys that thought making wow an cool esport was a good idea.
ChiperSoft Jan 23rd 2009 12:12PM
"...the loyalty of [WoW's] players" and "Kotick's cash lust."
If WoW ever falls from being the topdog in MMOs, this will be why. The only thing that can bring this game down in the company pissing off the customer base.
Antonia Jan 23rd 2009 1:51PM
Lets delve deeper into this, something that might not have been said in any other comment shall we..
his lust for our cash is endless in such a way that he rejected pushing forward on the Ghostbusters game. A game penned by Harold Ramis and Dan Akroyd themselves and voiced by all the original cast. A game that not only looked AMAZING but was supposed to play EVEN BETTER. A game based off a popular franchise that people are STILL pretty hardcore about even today.. a game that if done right would have made a lot of money and probably would have ushered sequels to the game itself as well as possibly a new movie that's been in talks forever.
His reason? I'll quote it the best i can remember:
"A game based on a movie when there's no movie coming out? that's ridiculous!"
and
"There's no market to make another game next year and years to come from this game.."
YEAH, he wants licensing money, which means profit from movies, cause we all know "movie to game" games are SOOOOO GOOD!... and he wants a market to make a million sequels every year that will probably be rushed and down right unworthy to even be played instead of 1 game that could be a smash hit and rake in cash, a game that would probably usher in sequels AFTER it comes out.. i mean seriously has any one watched the beloved cartoons? they can make ghosts out of ANY THING..
we're all lucky the heads of Atari aren't this stupid cause they scooped it up as soon as he threw it out the window with 0 changes to the game itself.. grats Atari and GG Activision
I seriously think this guy, and activision, in the long run, will ruin blizzard if allowed to get to close.
Todd Jan 23rd 2009 2:32PM
He's a pompous ass. He's a rich pompous ass. He can get away with such talk.
redmatrix Jan 23rd 2009 4:39PM
Its not Bobby Kotick that Im worried about. Its ghostcrawler F***in the game. GC is more responsble for the game sucking now than Bobby.
daryl Jan 27th 2009 6:05AM
I can imagine a humorless suited executive who was never played wow looking at a spreadsheet saying mmm "these Hunters should be downsized".
(insert appropriate class)
Daryl