Microsoft accquires Activision Blizzard

[Lurkmoar]

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/18/microsoft-to-buy-activision.html (Activision Blizzard SOLD to Microsoftl)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8JofkVcdf4

I think we're smack dab in the age of oligopolies. Oh well, back to the indie market I go.

[Zevox]

Huh. Microsoft continues to buy up game developers that are big names but barely matter to me personally. (The only thing I play from Activision-Blizzard is Hearthstone, and even that I'm down to mostly just playing Battlegrounds now. Similarly, I just shrugged when they bought Bethesda, because I don't care about anything they make.) Guess that works for me for now, but it is a concerning trend in the long run.

[factotum]

Because you think Microsoft is somehow *worse* than Activision Blizzard already is known to be? That's a pretty high bar, you realise?

[Cygnia]

Well, this looks like a chock full o' suck...:smallconfused:

[Psyren]

They've committed to the titles not going exclusive but I'll be shocked if Master Chief doesn't end up in their version of Call of Duty somehow. And certainly there will be stuff like an exclusive Spartan skin for Soldier 76 now.

On the Blizzard front I'm actually kind of excited, it's hard to see how they could possibly do a worse job with WoW and Overwatch than Kotick/JAB. (Yes, I know Kotick is staying on through the deal, but I put very good odds on him getting a cushy golden parachute and announcing his departure shortly after.)



I think we're smack dab in the age of oligopolies.

*astronaut meme*
Always has been.

[veti]

Because you think Microsoft is somehow *worse* than Activision Blizzard already is known to be? That's a pretty high bar, you realise?

This, exactly. I think there's a good chance of marked improvement. Microsoft games are - well, mostly not my cup of tea quite honestly, but at least they usually put out a decently polished product.

Activision is famous for its toxic workplace culture, exceptional even by the standards of the games industry. Microsoft at least makes some effort to care about its employees.

[Mechalich]

I feel like Microsoft overpaid, or at least could have gotten a better deal by waiting six months. Activision Blizzard is not a company on an upward trajectory and is in the midst of a series of highly public disasters on both the business and gaming sides of the property. Sure there's a bunch of major IPs to be gained from this (though some of them are fairly moribund at this point) but the timing is odd, especially since the ongoing pandemic provides something of an artificial boost to the video game industry as a whole.

[Keltest]

I feel like Microsoft overpaid, or at least could have gotten a better deal by waiting six months. Activision Blizzard is not a company on an upward trajectory and is in the midst of a series of highly public disasters on both the business and gaming sides of the property. Sure there's a bunch of major IPs to be gained from this (though some of them are fairly moribund at this point) but the timing is odd, especially since the ongoing pandemic provides something of an artificial boost to the video game industry as a whole.

You wait too long though and the titles youre picking up stop having any value.

[Rynjin]

I'm genuinely interested to see what Microsoft does with ActiBlizz. It's mildly concerning that they're snapping up so many big name properties in a general sense, but it's nice that there's a chance Blizzard won't just completely die now, as seemed to be inevitable.

Maybe they'll save Heroes of the Storm lmao.

[NeoVid]

Considering the... current situation with Activision, I don't see how this could make things worse. Microsoft grabbing every dev studio they can worries me on principle, but the results have turned out pretty well so far. Not axing Kottick immediately isn't promising, but if he doesn't last long under the new management, I'll consider that a very good sign.

Though the only thing that could convince me this is a great development is if Jeff Kaplan and the other Overwatch devs who walked out due to not being willing to be associated with Activision return to working on the game.

[Keltest]

Considering the... current situation with Activision, I don't see how this could make things worse. Microsoft grabbing every dev studio they can worries me on principle, but the results have turned out pretty well so far. Not axing Kottick immediately isn't promising, but if he doesn't last long under the new management, I'll consider that a very good sign.

Though the only thing that could convince me this is a great development is if Jeff Kaplan and the other Overwatch devs who walked out due to not being willing to be associated with Activision return to working on the game.

Most of them have other projects and studios theyre working on now, so i cant imagine that theyll just drop those to go back to Blizzard, but they might be more willing to form a partnership of sorts where they consult or something.

[sihnfahl]

Not axing Kottick immediately isn't promising, but if he doesn't last long under the new management, I'll consider that a very good sign.
They probably have plans to, but for continuity's sake, he stays on in what's effectively limited to an advisor. He makes no decisions that aren't filtered through his MS superiors, he only fills in what plans were in the works, etc.

He's toxic enough that they won't let him with any supervisory positions.


Though the only thing that could convince me this is a great development is if Jeff Kaplan and the other Overwatch devs who walked out due to not being willing to be associated with Activision return to working on the game.
They may have to rework the entire thing with Overwatch due to the mismanagement with Overwatch 2's announcement.

[Mechalich]

They probably have plans to, but for continuity's sake, he stays on in what's effectively limited to an advisor. He makes no decisions that aren't filtered through his MS superiors, he only fills in what plans were in the works, etc.

The deal isn't final yet - and won't be until 'fiscal year 2023' which means October at the earliest - firing Kotick (or really any Activision Executive) prior to the completion of the handover would significantly complicate the deal structure from a legal and logistical perspective. Kotick will probably leave once the handover is completed, and it likely won't be considered a 'firing.' His position, which will become superfluous, will simply be eliminated.

[Anteros]

I'm genuinely interested to see what Microsoft does with ActiBlizz. It's mildly concerning that they're snapping up so many big name properties in a general sense, but it's nice that there's a chance Blizzard won't just completely die now, as seemed to be inevitable.

Maybe they'll save Heroes of the Storm lmao.

A Moba with every Microsoft property to pull from could be interesting.

On the one hand, I don't think one company monopolizing properties is ever good for the consumers. It almost always ends up terribly. On the other hand, Activision and Blizzard were already a dumpster fire, so it's not like this can make them much worse. On my phantom third hand, I can't really remember the last time microsoft made a truly good game. Everything they get their claws in becomes high budget, but homogenized garbage.

[Lurkmoar]

From what I've seen online, part of Kotick's contract is a 250 million severance, if he was let go before the terms of said contract was up.

I have never had a doubt that about Kotick getting a golden parachute, no matter how much I wished he crashed into a cactus.

[Velaryon]

I'll echo those who said that this is a worrisome trend in general but perhaps a good thing in this particular case. I don't think it's going to have much effect on me personally, in that I haven't really been playing too many Activision Blizzard games anyway. The only one I've played in the last few years is Overwatch, and I've mostly walked away from that due to general dissatisfaction with its direction. Frankly, the best news that could come out of this from my perspective would be if they scrapped Overwatch 2 entirely and started over from scratch. Not that I'm expecting that, but it would be very welcome news to me since I think the entire franchise is headed in the wrong direction and has been for some time.

As for Activision Blizzard's biggest brands, I really couldn't care less what happens to World of Warcraft or Call of Duty.

[Giggling Ghast]

Reportedly Kotick will get a payout of more than $300 million, which is a shame because he does not deserve it and was at least partly responsible for the company’s pitiful state of affairs.

On the other hand, he was already rich, so whatever. At least he’ll be gone.

[Anteros]

As for Activision Blizzard's biggest brands, I really couldn't care less what happens to World of Warcraft or Call of Duty.

I care what happens to wow primarily because every other mmo seems determined to mimic their model until the end of time.

[Seerow]

A Moba with every Microsoft property to pull from could be interesting.

On the one hand, I don't think one company monopolizing properties is ever good for the consumers. It almost always ends up terribly. On the other hand, Activision and Blizzard were already a dumpster fire, so it's not like this can make them much worse. On my phantom third hand, I can't really remember the last time microsoft made a truly good game. Everything they get their claws in becomes high budget, but homogenized garbage.

Their last 6 months include Halo Infinite, Forza 5, Age of Empires 4, and Psychonauts 2. I could see your claim applying to Halo and Forza (I don't care enough for either genre to really feel able to distinguish between homogenized garbage and great, but reviews have been generally positive), but not the latter two. They're also behind Sea of Thieves which is one of the more unique games to have come out recently, and is a fantastic game.

Which is to say, I think Microsoft gets a much worse rap than it deserves for how its games do. Also with the Bethesda acquisition, while we haven't seen any games out of it yet, at the very least we haven't heard any stories coming out of Bethesda of them being forced make any changes to the games they make.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

Also with the Bethesda acquisition, while we haven't seen any games out of it yet, at the very least we haven't heard any stories coming out of Bethesda of them being forced make any changes to the games they make.

For what it’s worth, from the ESO forums I gather that the Endeavors system* is in part due to Microsoft buying Bethesda (something about Microsoft’s gamble-box policy). That’s an improvement, mind, albeit a small one.

The official forums seem to be policed better too and the game in general less toxic but that could be any number of other factors including: COVID driving more people back to the game diluting the number of toxic folk, the toxic people leaving during the year-and-a-half I was away from the game, or simple luck on my part as I haven’t been back that long.


*Endeavors system == all the stuff that used to be exclusive to the ESO gamble boxes is now also available for Endeavors currency, and the Endeavors are earnable by performing tasks in the game, admittedly in very small, limited numbers, on a daily and weekly basis.

[NeoVid]

A point about this merger that I hadn't considered: This makes Microsoft close enough to an industry monopoly that it could very well get them hit by antitrust laws again.

[Rynjin]

A point about this merger that I hadn't considered: This makes Microsoft close enough to an industry monopoly that it could very well get them hit by antitrust laws again.

I think that'd be complicated by the fact that it's a global market, and Microsoft is not the largest publisher in the world even with this merger (Tencent and Sony still beat them).

[Mechalich]

A point about this merger that I hadn't considered: This makes Microsoft close enough to an industry monopoly that it could very well get them hit by antitrust laws again.

The merger is large enough that is will require official approval from the government, which is not guaranteed though it is expected. This is one of several reasons why the merger won't be finalized for many months and perhaps not for a year or more.

[CircleOfTheRock]

People are being very alarmist about this happening, but I don’t think it’s necessarily too worrying. Yes, Microsoft buying everything up would be bad, but while Blizzard has a lot of games that they have made, there’s not that many running franchises that Microsoft is swallowing here.

There’s still a lot left to play. There are other things. It’s not an industry monopoly unless you pretend that neither things other than consoles nor Nintendo nor Sony exist. And Nintendo’s said that they won’t be bought up a foreign entity, iirc, and PC gaming as a thing is way too spread out for anyone to have any more control over it than Steam does by providing a large number of games or than Microsoft does by having the most popular platform for it (Windows).

[CircleOfTheRock]

but while Blizzard has a lot of games that they have made, there’s not that many running franchises that Microsoft is swallowing here.
I looked it up and WoW + Starcraft + Diablo + Overwatch is a fair few, but my main point, that Blizzard isn’t big enough to turn Microsoft’s share of gaming into anywhere near a monopoly, still stands.

[Keltest]

I looked it up and WoW + Starcraft + Diablo + Overwatch is a fair few, but my main point, that Blizzard isn’t big enough to turn Microsoft’s share of gaming into anywhere near a monopoly, still stands.

Its Activision-Blizzard. So CoD and a bunch of other stuff that nobody knows off hand because Activision likes to buy their way into sticking their name on stuff like EA does as well.

[Psyren]

Its Activision-Blizzard. So CoD and a bunch of other stuff that nobody knows off hand because Activision likes to buy their way into sticking their name on stuff like EA does as well.

The other big one would be King (the Candy Crush folks) which makes more money than WoW, possibly even more than CoD. Those three franchises make up the vast majority of their revenue, and none of the others account for more than 10%. (Overwatch revenues have fallen off precipitously.)

[Keltest]

Man, remember when non-subscription games werent expected to continually drain peoples wallets for the entire duration of their gaming experience?

Hopefully Microsoft can help return us to that era.

[Lurkmoar]

People are being very alarmist about this happening, but I don’t think it’s necessarily too worrying. Yes, Microsoft buying everything up would be bad, but while Blizzard has a lot of games that they have made, there’s not that many running franchises that Microsoft is swallowing here.

There’s still a lot left to play. There are other things. It’s not an industry monopoly unless you pretend that neither things other than consoles nor Nintendo nor Sony exist. And Nintendo’s said that they won’t be bought up a foreign entity, iirc, and PC gaming as a thing is way too spread out for anyone to have any more control over it than Steam does by providing a large number of games or than Microsoft does by having the most popular platform for it (Windows).

My first post references oligopoly, not monopoly. There is a difference, but in the end, both are not good for the end users.

[warty goblin]

It's also a big play in the mobile space, since the phone version of CoD is a big deal.

I think Microsoft is angling towards being the Netflix of videogames, and this is a huge move towards that goal. Not the Netflix of a decade ago either, which relied on licensing third party content - Google basically tried the gaming equivalent of that with Stadia and went nowhere - but the modern first party content producing Netflix. Sony could maybe challenge them in this space, but Gamepass is a huge lead, and from what I gather xCloud is getting pretty close to getting streaming gaming ready for prime time. That's a huge tech edge, with xCloud making them nearly console sales agnostic once it starts to be really pushed for smart TVs etc. A world where you just turn your TV on, and there's the latest CoD ready to play instantly with no hardware purchase necessary starts to make owning a console seem superfluous. Like buying CDs.

And now they have the content library and production capability to really capitalize on this. I know everybody rags on it, but Activision makes a new CoD game every year, and CoD is like 2-3 normal games worth of content. That's an immense technical ability that not a lot of other studio systems can match. With this, Bethesda, and their other acquisitions in the last couple years, they've got mass market appeal, and a strong pitch to more niche tastes, sort of the gaming equivalent of Netflix's more prestigious projects.

[Rodin]

I'm kind of sad that I no longer care about Blizzard being bought out. They were one of the "no-review, guaranteed good" companies when I was growing up. I bought Diablo I on the strength of the company name alone, and World of Warcraft remains one of only a couple of MMOs I've played.


And yet...I can't remember the last time I bought a new game from them. I occasionally splash out some bucks on Hearthstone as it's the perennial idle game for when I'm watching TV. Other than that though? Nothing. They have no projects on the horizon that I'm excited for. The best game I've played recently from them was the remaster of Diablo II, which showed me exactly why I was playing that game instead of Diablo III or being excited for Diablo IV.

I can't even think of any companies that hit the "No reviews needed, I trust this company to make good games" criteria that several used to fall under. The closest are the Soulsborne games, but that's a specific game director rather than the company - From Software puts out plenty of trash (including their own attempt at a Soulsborne without Miyazaki at the helm).

[warty goblin]

IIRC the last new title Blizzard put out was Overwatch, which was what, five years ago? Sure it was a big deal at the time, but I don't get the sense that the rise of the Battle Royale has been kind to Overwatch as a design. Otherwise it's just expansions and rereleases, so unless Hearthstone is like, your main game, hard to stay excited about. And they've definitely not been batting 100 on the rerelease front.

Really, I think in terms of value, the only substantial things Blizzard is adding to the Activision Blizzard portfolio right now are the (admittedly large) revenue streams for WoW and Hearthstone, neither of which are going to recover their status as the new hotness. I could see Microsoft bankrolling a Starcraft 3 or Warcraft 4, simply because MS is clearly willing to invest in still-beloved legacy IP as a subscription driver, but compared to what they're getting in the mobile spaces and the Call of Duty juggernaut, that's pretty niche.

[zlefin]

Yeah, I too miss the days of blizzard being so good I didn't feel a need to test games before buying. I know my tastes have changed some over time (and I've acquired a propensity for headaches from some games which requires me to be pickier); but games that are just plain great I still tended to like. I also can't think of any present companies that I'd autobuy just based on their record. Of course it's also easier these days to test things for the most part (through things like Steam return). Admittedly you don't see much of the old-school "playable limited version" much anymore, which I'm sure I used a fair bit back in the day to get a feel for a game.

I'm definitely not concerned about Microsoft causing blizzard to make worse/inferior games; because I haven't been that fond of them for quite some time either. Hearthstone is still ok, though not that amazing or anything, just a nice time, sometimes. Though the power creep is quite palpable for anyone who's been around for a long time, and they're pushing more crazy stuff where they have to nerf things post-release. It reminds me of how in M:tG there were eras (ie spans of 3-5 years) where almost nothing got banned/errata'ed, and then certain times or blocks that had multiple major bans needed, because they were pushing things too far.

I guess hearthstone is the only blizz games I've significantly played in a long time. I played Heroes of the Storm for awhile, then stopped. It was an ok game, but it doesn't quite have teh replayability as others. Still decent enough, maybe it still is. Of course it was never great or anything, just nice, and had some interesting merits to it.

[Zevox]

I can't even think of any companies that hit the "No reviews needed, I trust this company to make good games" criteria that several used to fall under.
I still have several. Arc System Works, Platinum Games, and Atlus mainly, and for their series that interest me Sony and Nintendo usually qualify as well (though they've had their ocassional issues). Though personally, Blizzard was never in that category for me - though partially just because I've played very few of their games. Just the two Starcraft games and Hearthstone, really. (Technically I very briefly played WoW, but only for a Hearthstone promotion, and I didn't like it.) Their other games have just never much interested me, personally.

The only real loss from that list that I've had is Bioware.

[The Glyphstone]

The only company I buy games review-unseen from is Spiderweb Software, which is essentially a 1-man indie operation anyways.

[Vinyadan]

After Age of Empires 4 was released to a wave of awe and the Warcraft 3 remake was released to a wave of "ugh" , I wouldn't be too surprised if Microsoft really pushed for a Warcraft 4 and stuck to the landing.

In general, I see Microsoft as one of the few serious businesses in informatics. They have been publishing good games for 20 years, and I have always found their other products very reliable (although I am not clear on which of these games were developed by Microsoft-owned studios and which were just published).

The monopoly thing might be worrisome, but it depends on how it develops. Disney for example acquired a lot of IPs to then make a lot of money by publishing stuff that I don't like and feels like isn't going anywhere. It's like we are back to sword and sandals, just with superheroes (and SW, and others).

In gamer news, people at Microsoft Xbox seem currently unwelcoming towards NFTs, seeing them as a way to make money without adding anything to gameplay.

[Velaryon]

IIRC the last new title Blizzard put out was Overwatch, which was what, five years ago? Sure it was a big deal at the time, but I don't get the sense that the rise of the Battle Royale has been kind to Overwatch as a design. Otherwise it's just expansions and rereleases, so unless Hearthstone is like, your main game, hard to stay excited about. And they've definitely not been batting 100 on the rerelease front.

Overwatch was released in May 2016, so it's coming up on 6 years now. It made a big splash, but has been slowly dwindling for a few years now. I don't think battle royale games really have much to do with it, though. Rather, it's a series of poor decisions by Blizzard that have caused the game to stagnate, including but not limited to:

Myopic focus on the esports scene to the detriment of game balance for regular players
A matchmaking system that results in far more blowout wins or losses than actually competitive games
Terrible balancing decisions that indicate a lack of understanding of their own game mechanics
Unwillingness or inability to properly handle toxic game behaviors such as smurfing, throwing, and mid-match quitting
Failure to meaningfully expand on the setting lore by actually telling/advancing the main story
Near-complete lack of new maps and characters for about 2 whole years
Prematurely announcing Overwatch 2 and then repeatedly delaying it
Losing Jeff Kaplan as the lead designer and public face of the Overwatch team


There's a lot that Blizzard did right with Overwatch, but there's also a lot that they did wrong, and the latter list has been piling up more and more while the former has been largely stagnant.

[Anteros]

After Age of Empires 4 was released to a wave of awe and the Warcraft 3 remake was released to a wave of "ugh" , I wouldn't be too surprised if Microsoft really pushed for a Warcraft 4 and stuck to the landing.

Was AoE4 that great though? My impression is that it had a strong launch, but the playerbase quickly lost interest due to numerous bugs and poor balance. That's certainly what happened in my friend group, as well as with the few streamers I follow. The launch wasn't hurt by the fact that you could get the game for a dollar either.

As for developers I trust....the only one coming to mind is Capcom. Their games might not all appeal to my personal taste, but you can trust them to put out a quality, and fairly bug free product.

[warty goblin]

Overwatch was released in May 2016, so it's coming up on 6 years now. It made a big splash, but has been slowly dwindling for a few years now. I don't think battle royale games really have much to do with it, though. Rather, it's a series of poor decisions by Blizzard that have caused the game to stagnate, including but not limited to:

Myopic focus on the esports scene to the detriment of game balance for regular players
A matchmaking system that results in far more blowout wins or losses than actually competitive games
Terrible balancing decisions that indicate a lack of understanding of their own game mechanics
Unwillingness or inability to properly handle toxic game behaviors such as smurfing, throwing, and mid-match quitting
Failure to meaningfully expand on the setting lore by actually telling/advancing the main story
Near-complete lack of new maps and characters for about 2 whole years
Prematurely announcing Overwatch 2 and then repeatedly delaying it
Losing Jeff Kaplan as the lead designer and public face of the Overwatch team


There's a lot that Blizzard did right with Overwatch, but there's also a lot that they did wrong, and the latter list has been piling up more and more while the former has been largely stagnant.

You're probably right, I don't follow Overwatch at all closely. I'm just saying though, at this point if you were trying to get a buddy into a shooter, you've got lots of free options with tons of visual and loadout choices, decent progression mechanics, and much more open and expressive play. Or you could try to get them to hack up for Overwatch, which costs money just to get in the door, has visual customization limited to skin selection - much of which is locked behind the hated lootbox - no weapon or loudout choices beyond character selection, and character choices so straight jacket tight that sprint is a special ability. I just can't see that as a compelling offering in 2022, compared to Fortnite or Apex Legends or even Halo.


Was AoE4 that great though? My impression is that it had a strong launch, but the playerbase quickly lost interest due to numerous bugs and poor balance. That's certainly what happened in my friend group, as well as with the few streamers I follow. The launch wasn't hurt by the fact that you could get the game for a dollar either.

As for developers I trust....the only one coming to mind is Capcom. Their games might not all appeal to my personal taste, but you can trust them to put out a quality, and fairly bug free product.
I think the better comparison is the Age 2 re-release vs. the WC 3 re-release, since they were both remasters of solid titles from the Golden Age of RTSs, trading heavily on the nostalgia factor. Hell, Blizzard probably had the stronger position thanks to their rep, and the bit where there already was a perfectly serviceable HD re-release of Age 2 on the market. The only reason the WC3 remaster didn't get the positive reception and revitalized player base that Age 2 did is that the Age 2 team did fantastic work and Blizzard screwed it up massively. Or their contractor did, but choosing to release a bad product is still on them at the end of the day.


There's quite a few developers I trust. I'll get anything Triumph makes no questions asked, 10 Tons always has my attention at the very least, and there's a bunch of devs I'm not thinking of, but will jump when I see their name.

[Artanis]

Looking at the list of Blizzard games since Activision took over, it's pretty clear to me that Activision ruined Blizzard. My HOPE is that getting Activision's toxicity out of the picture will let Blizzard finally return to glory. I don't EXPECT that to happen, mind you - by now, the damage has almost certainly become irreversible - but a guy can hope.

[Zevox]

Looking at the list of Blizzard games since Activision took over, it's pretty clear to me that Activision ruined Blizzard. My HOPE is that getting Activision's toxicity out of the picture will let Blizzard finally return to glory. I don't EXPECT that to happen, mind you - by now, the damage has almost certainly become irreversible - but a guy can hope.
Yeah, I kinda know that feeling. I still hold out hope that the new Mass Effect and Dragon Age that Bioware is working on will be good. I don't have much reason to, but I do anyway.

[MCerberus]

The Bioware issues they've been having turned out to be a 'the call is coming from inside the house' situation, which makes me a little sad.

However, what I'm worried about is that if you think the activision IP vault is deep, dark, and inescapable, you have not seen the likes of MSGS. I mean Spyro and Crash may get a crossover with a certain squirrel, but don't hold your breath Nathan Zackery is every going to show his face again. The Metal Arms sequel? Still not happening.

[Cygnia]

*sighs sadly*

Has there been any update since 2018? :smallyuk:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-women/microsoft-women-filed-238-discrimination-and-harassment-complaints-idUSKCN1GP077

[Anteros]

Looking at the list of Blizzard games since Activision took over, it's pretty clear to me that Activision ruined Blizzard. My HOPE is that getting Activision's toxicity out of the picture will let Blizzard finally return to glory. I don't EXPECT that to happen, mind you - by now, the damage has almost certainly become irreversible - but a guy can hope.

At first I disagreed with this, but actually looking at it...you're right. The merger was in 2008, which is basically the exact time Blizzard's quality became nonexistent.

[Keltest]

At first I disagreed with this, but actually looking at it...you're right. The merger was in 2008, which is basically the exact time Blizzard's quality became nonexistent.

Starcraft 2 was 2010, WoW was going on for a long time after that before it started to really hit low points, Heroes of the Storm was a lot of fun, Overwatch was great at launch.

The sharp drop in quality can be traced to approximately the time where J Allen Brack was put in charge of Blizzard. You know, the "you think you want it, but you dont" guy.

[Dienekes]

Starcraft 2 was 2010, WoW was going on for a long time after that before it started to really hit low points, Heroes of the Storm was a lot of fun, Overwatch was great at launch.

The sharp drop in quality can be traced to approximately the time where J Allen Brack was put in charge of Blizzard. You know, the "you think you want it, but you dont" guy.

I’d point out that development time and traction is a thing. I don’t know what WoW’s development cycle is, but my understanding is SC2 was in development since 2003 and the acquisition by Activision did not alter the release product in any real way. So it remains essentially the last original Blizzard game.

I don’t know much about the others, don’t like MOBAs or MMOs. So I can’t say how much of the development of those games came from Activision or not. But to determine Activisions influence I’d probably look to what monetization methods or post release design decisions made to get views. That seems more what they’d care about rather than direct interference with the game’s development. Since from what I’ve been told part of their decision to cut work on SC2 wasn’t that it was no longer played or even still profitable, but because it was harder to get additional monetization from it. Coop Commanders and Nova missions took a lot more time and effort and the skins are both less popular, important, and difficult to turn into a real cash maker like Overwatch’s loot boxes.

[Psyren]

Simu Liu (aka Shang Chi) made a tweet about saving Starcraft that prompted a Blizzard response. Make of that what you will.

From my perspective, all I can go off is Microsoft's track record. While they themselves haven't been great game producers (cancelling stuff I was really interested in like Scalebound and Fable Legends), the properties they've acquired like Minecraft and ESO are still going strong.

[Giggling Ghast]

A producer on Overwatch, Tracy Kennedy, recently ripped Bobby Kotick on Twitter for his mismanagement of Overwatch 2, pointing out that Bobby would throw random projects at the team and then change his mind a short while later, which led to hundreds of hours of wasted dev time.

On top of being a slimy weasel willing to fire employees left and right to increase profits, he's apparently kind of an idiot, albeit one who failed upwards.

[Keltest]

I find this wildly unsurprising, given that he's the source of firing all the community management people when they made record profits then watched the community suddenly go unmanaged.

[Zevox]

Simu Liu (aka Shang Chi) made a tweet about saving Starcraft that prompted a Blizzard response. Make of that what you will.

From my perspective, all I can go off is Microsoft's track record. While they themselves haven't been great game producers (cancelling stuff I was really interested in like Scalebound and Fable Legends), the properties they've acquired like Minecraft and ESO are still going strong.
Eh, to be fair to them about Scalebound, by all accounts that was a mess on all sides. Platinum Games themselves admit there was development trouble and they weren't happy with how it went either, and the companies apparently didn't entirely mesh well during development, and have said that both they and Microsoft were partly to blame for it not coming to fruition.

As for Starcraft though, if this leads to that franchise not staying dead, that'll at least be a positive, I do like those.

[Psyren]

A producer on Overwatch, Tracy Kennedy, recently ripped Bobby Kotick on Twitter for his mismanagement of Overwatch 2, pointing out that Bobby would throw random projects at the team and then change his mind a short while later, which led to hundreds of hours of wasted dev time.

On top of being a slimy weasel willing to fire employees left and right to increase profits, he's apparently kind of an idiot, albeit one who failed upwards.


I find this wildly unsurprising, given that he's the source of firing all the community management people when they made record profits then watched the community suddenly go unmanaged.

Part of me wonders how much of his seeming incompetence/irrationality/mismanagement, stemmed from intentionally tanking the company into buyout range and making sure he himself would get a sweet payout in the process. After all, a number of those shares they ponied up for were his.

...Ugh, this system.


Eh, to be fair to them about Scalebound, by all accounts that was a mess on all sides. Platinum Games themselves admit there was development trouble and they weren't happy with how it went either, and the companies apparently didn't entirely mesh well during development, and have said that both they and Microsoft were partly to blame for it not coming to fruition.

There might have been issues on both sides, but I (and i suspect you too) am more apt to trust Platinum's track record than MSG's.


As for Starcraft though, if this leads to that franchise not staying dead, that'll at least be a positive, I do like those.

I would absolutely pay for more co-op maps...

[factotum]

Part of me wonders how much of his seeming incompetence/irrationality/mismanagement, stemmed from intentionally tanking the company into buyout range and making sure he himself would get a sweet payout in the process.

I prefer to go with the old saying "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence". Quite apart from anything else, I'm pretty sure that some (maybe even most) of Kotick's frankly obscene remuneration package is dependent on the performance of the company, and seems to me that's a better deal than tanking the company and hoping somebody wants to buy out the wreckage.

[Dienekes]

Part of me wonders how much of his seeming incompetence/irrationality/mismanagement, stemmed from intentionally tanking the company into buyout range and making sure he himself would get a sweet payout in the process. After all, a number of those shares they ponied up for were his.

...Ugh, this system.



Possible, but I kinda doubt it. My understanding was Microsoft broached the idea of a buyout before all the recent horror came out and Bobby was vehemently against it.

More likely it's the same old nonsense. Company gets big because of the quality and originality of a product. Because it gets big it hires people to turn big into biggest, through marketing, cost efficiency, all that stuff that increases a businesses profitability. And eventually those types gain control instead of the creators of the product likely with little idea what made the product successful in the first place as they are focused on economic. So they direct the company toward cheap monetary gaining measures and trend chasing instead of trusting in the initial product.

Happens all the time. And Bobby has some background in software development, but really quickly shifted into just being a businessman. And businessmen are gonna business. It's what they do.

[veti]

...Ugh, this system.

Every system can and will be rorted by bad actors. Wherever there are rules, there's a game, and wherever there's a game, there will be people who play only to win.

That said, I don't believe there's any evidence of bad faith in this specific case.


Quite apart from anything else, I'm pretty sure that some (maybe even most) of Kotick's frankly obscene remuneration package is dependent on the performance of the company, and seems to me that's a better deal than tanking the company and hoping somebody wants to buy out the wreckage.

Exactly. Failing intentionally is an incredibly hard thing to pull off. It's like playing life on Legendary difficulty. Keep in mind that the feedback loop is incomplete, the consequences can take months or years to become apparent, and even then it's impossible to be sure how the results will be weighted...

When people say that a failure was exactly what they wanted, what they really mean is that they have figured out a way to exploit it. That's the secret to Xanatos masterminds.

[Anteros]

Possible, but I kinda doubt it. My understanding was Microsoft broached the idea of a buyout before all the recent horror came out and Bobby was vehemently against it.

More likely it's the same old nonsense. Company gets big because of the quality and originality of a product. Because it gets big it hires people to turn big into biggest, through marketing, cost efficiency, all that stuff that increases a businesses profitability. And eventually those types gain control instead of the creators of the product likely with little idea what made the product successful in the first place as they are focused on economic. So they direct the company toward cheap monetary gaining measures and trend chasing instead of trusting in the initial product.

Happens all the time. And Bobby has some background in software development, but really quickly shifted into just being a businessman. And businessmen are gonna business. It's what they do.

Yup. Blizzard used to make unique properties (or at least they used to steal unique properties from Games Workshop and change enough things to make them more widely appealing.) Anything with mainstream popularity eventually gets homogenized to appeal to the lowest common denominator since that's what makes the most cash. Sadly, unique and innovative doesn't bring in money like safe and repetitive.

[Zevox]

There might have been issues on both sides, but I (and i suspect you too) am more apt to trust Platinum's track record than MSG's.
Generally speaking, yes. But Platinum's own remarks about the game have also been consistent for years that they don't like Microsoft getting the brunt of the flak for what happened, and they bear no small part of the responsibility. Kamiya himself apologized (https://www.ign.com/articles/scalebound-platinum-games) for the game's failure just a few months ago, and attributed it to Platinum dealing with a lot of unfamiliar conditions compared to their past games. Given that, I'm inclined to believe them that the failure was theirs as well.

[Keltest]

So, who thinks its a coincidence that the deal goes through and Blizzard almost immediately starts hiring for a new, unannounced survival game?

Nobody?

[The Glyphstone]

The deal hasn't actually been signed yet, as far as I know, only announced?

[Seerow]

The deal hasn't actually been signed yet, as far as I know, only announced?

Yeah, buzz on twitter about the game/team in question indicates it's been in development for a while and they're looking to expand their team. And Microsoft still has no control over the company for another 18 months even if the deal does get approved. I find it hard to believe the two are related in any way.

[Psyren]

The deal hasn't actually been signed yet, as far as I know, only announced?

It's a bit stronger than an announcement of intent since they've completed the relevant SEC filing.


I prefer to go with the old saying "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence". Quite apart from anything else, I'm pretty sure that some (maybe even most) of Kotick's frankly obscene remuneration package is dependent on the performance of the company, and seems to me that's a better deal than tanking the company and hoping somebody wants to buy out the wreckage.

I honestly don't think "hope" had much to do with it. These are executives who frequent a lot of the same circles, conferences, country clubs etc.


Every system can and will be rorted by bad actors. Wherever there are rules, there's a game, and wherever there's a game, there will be people who play only to win.

That said, I don't believe there's any evidence of bad faith in this specific case.

Some systems reward bad actors more readily than others, by design.
But I won't poke that particular beehive further.

[warty goblin]

Yeah, buzz on twitter about the game/team in question indicates it's been in development for a while and they're looking to expand their team. And Microsoft still has no control over the company for another 18 months even if the deal does get approved. I find it hard to believe the two are related in any way.

On the other hand if your company is known far and wide as a vile and toxic hellhole from which major talent has been fleeing for years, maybe holding that jobs posting until after the announcement that you're going to purchased by a different company with a maybe functioning HR department has some wisdom to it.

To say nothing of the wisdom of having something to offer your new overlords when they show up, besides decaying revenue streams from increasingly moss-covered titles and various disillusioned fan bases. Because if I were in Blizzard leadership right now, I'd be very, very worried about looking like the weakest, least valuable piece of the acquisition, so this might be a good time to light the fires under that new project. Get it as far along as possible in the next year. Maybe make the announcement very public, try to drum up some positive buzz, like would have happened 8 years ago.

Though a survival title is almost too on the nose for a rather floundering developer with a real deficit of original ideas to try to drum up some enthusiasm *coughOriginalFortNite*cough*MetalGearSurvive*coug h*Conan*cough. The genre seems almost immune to anybody but small indie teams actually scoring big hits.

[Artanis]

On the other hand if your company is known far and wide as a vile and toxic hellhole from which major talent has been fleeing for years, maybe holding that jobs posting until after the announcement that you're going to purchased by a different company with a maybe functioning HR department has some wisdom to it.

To say nothing of the wisdom of having something to offer your new overlords when they show up, besides decaying revenue streams from increasingly moss-covered titles and various disillusioned fan bases. Because if I were in Blizzard leadership right now, I'd be very, very worried about looking like the weakest, least valuable piece of the acquisition, so this might be a good time to light the fires under that new project. Get it as far along as possible in the next year. Maybe make the announcement very public, try to drum up some positive buzz, like would have happened 8 years ago.

Though a survival title is almost too on the nose for a rather floundering developer with a real deficit of original ideas to try to drum up some enthusiasm *coughOriginalFortNite*cough*MetalGearSurvive*coug h*Conan*cough. The genre seems almost immune to anybody but small indie teams actually scoring big hits.

When you put it like this, it makes me think that this would be a great way to test how much Blizzard is left in Blizzard. If anybody can pull it off, it's the company that made StarCraft...so now we'll get to see if that company still exists, or if Activision really has killed it.

[warty goblin]

When you put it like this, it makes me think that this would be a great way to test how much Blizzard is left in Blizzard. If anybody can pull it off, it's the company that made StarCraft...so now we'll get to see if that company still exists, or if Activision really has killed it.

I think for survival games its mostly that the audience has a high tolerance for jank, and wants a lot of expressive, often simulation type features. Witness Subnautica, which is absolutely beloved even though it runs like a sloth dying of consumption and doesn't exactly control super smooth either. Nobody cares, because it's by a small team with a cohesive vision, has a great world to explore, and lots of very flexible, creative things to do in that world.

These are not the strengths of major developers though, and big devs get absolutely crucified in public perception for polish/smoothness issues. The more polish you add, the less dynamic and interactive the world necessarily becomes, which directly undermines the entire appeal of the genre. I think it's inherently a hard genre for major developers to go for.

And Starcraft came out 24 years ago. Whatever else we can say, Blizzard is definitely not that company anymore. Nothing made up of humans remains constant for that long. Even if the company roster was completely unaltered, the people won't be the same because its a quarter century later.

[Psyren]

Subnautica is beloved because it's not just a crafting/survival game, it's narrative-heavy atmospheric horror and we don't get a ton of those. Not saying Blizzard can't do that with theirs of course.

On the pure survival front, Microsoft runs Minecraft so Blizzard should be able to get some help "in-house." Obviously Minecraft is more than that, but its various survival modes are still solid examples of the genre.

[Anteros]

Subnautica benefits heavily from being an underwater game with horror elements. Low visibility is expected and even desired. You can excuse things not popping in until the last minute as your character just not seeing them. If your pc is good enough you can actually go into the settings and "fix" the pop in issues, but it leads to a much less immersive experience. Or at least it did for me.

The narrative driven part is a little more complicated. The first game definitely benefited from giving your character a background and motive even though it was fairly bare-bones. The second game leaned into fleshing the story out much more, and is a much worse game as a result.

[noob]

I think for survival games its mostly that the audience has a high tolerance for jank, and wants a lot of expressive, often simulation type features. Witness Subnautica, which is absolutely beloved even though it runs like a sloth dying of consumption and doesn't exactly control super smooth either. Nobody cares, because it's by a small team with a cohesive vision, has a great world to explore, and lots of very flexible, creative things to do in that world.

These are not the strengths of major developers though, and big devs get absolutely crucified in public perception for polish/smoothness issues. The more polish you add, the less dynamic and interactive the world necessarily becomes, which directly undermines the entire appeal of the genre. I think it's inherently a hard genre for major developers to go for.

And Starcraft came out 24 years ago. Whatever else we can say, Blizzard is definitely not that company anymore. Nothing made up of humans remains constant for that long. Even if the company roster was completely unaltered, the people won't be the same because its a quarter century later.
All the great names involved in SC1, SC2 and WC3 left and now are in companies like dream-haven and frost giant games.
So yes we know that it is no longer the same company in terms of people with great names.

[factotum]

The second game leaned into fleshing the story out much more, and is a much worse game as a result.

I don't think that's the main reason Below Zero was a worse game than the first one. Rather, it was the fact it was far smaller and had less to explore, with the game's length artificially lengthened by making you have to explore through mazelike cave systems--there were none of the vast underwater caverns you got in the first game. Plus, let's be honest, the Seatruck absolutely sucks compared to the Cyclops/Seamoth combo from the first game. It was doubling down on the aspects of the first game nobody cared much about (which included the story, true) while dialling back the good stuff.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

I don't think that's the main reason Below Zero was a worse game than the first one. Rather, it was the fact it was far smaller and had less to explore, with the game's length artificially lengthened by making you have to explore through mazelike cave systems--there were none of the vast underwater caverns you got in the first game.

An addendum, if I may: they artificially lengthened the game by making you explore the same mazelike cave systems more than once.

This is why I made a bee-line for AL-AN on my last playthrough. I know about the statue/water filter/geological research whatsits the Architechs left behind, please do not make me retrace my steps just for that. :smallannoyed:
They also didn’t seem to put as much effort into making it feel like a world rather than a game that takes place underwater.

Lots of zones that are empty or nearly empty with only one species in it, all the Prawn suit arms littering the deepest levels with no explanation, even the design of the Oxygen plants feel more like ‘notice me, I’m a powerup!’ rather than something living in an ecosystem.
Additionally they had to redo the main quest at least once during development, which I think is what resulted in the part you start out with kind of trailing off, and breaking a bit if you complete steps out of sequence. This does not make it better, but hopefully they learned enough from that not to break it that way again if they ever make Subnautica 3.


Plus, let's be honest, the Seatruck absolutely sucks compared to the Cyclops/Seamoth combo from the first game. It was doubling down on the aspects of the first game nobody cared much about (which included the story, true) while dialling back the good stuff.

Second Seatruck complaints. While I’m glad they made an attempt to shake things up, I wouldn’t miss the Seatruck if they never brought it back in a sequel.

Part of the problem for me was that it seems to be more durable than the Seamoth, with no effort on the player’s part. Combine that with the lack of mid-sized predators in most zones, and I never really felt threatened the way I did in Subnautica 1.
I will argue that the Snowfox was even worse though: too fragile to be useful, hard to steer, not a lot of customization options, the only plus it has is that you can pick it up and carry it.

[factotum]

I will argue that the Snowfox was even worse though: too fragile to be useful, hard to steer, not a lot of customization options, the only plus it has is that you can pick it up and carry it.

I never even bothered building that thing. For wandering around the surface the prawn suit was simply better--more durable and no chance of you freezing to death--and since the Snowfox was useless in the water, that was a pretty big black mark in a game that's supposed to be about underwater exploration!

[Vinyadan]

Subnautica benefits heavily from being an underwater game with horror elements. Low visibility is expected and even desired. You can excuse things not popping in until the last minute as your character just not seeing them. If your pc is good enough you can actually go into the settings and "fix" the pop in issues, but it leads to a much less immersive experience. Or at least it did for me.


The "nights at Freddy's" games pretty much only work because of a limited field of view and things suddenly showing up. There's probably other examples.

[Anteros]

I don't think that's the main reason Below Zero was a worse game than the first one. Rather, it was the fact it was far smaller and had less to explore, with the game's length artificially lengthened by making you have to explore through mazelike cave systems--there were none of the vast underwater caverns you got in the first game. Plus, let's be honest, the Seatruck absolutely sucks compared to the Cyclops/Seamoth combo from the first game. It was doubling down on the aspects of the first game nobody cared much about (which included the story, true) while dialling back the good stuff.

I suppose I'm of the opinion that they took development time that should have been spent on making the world larger and more immersive and wasted it on the story. You're completely correct that the story in a vacuum is not the main failing of the game.


An addendum, if I may: they artificially lengthened the game by making you explore the same mazelike cave systems more than once.

This is why I made a bee-line for AL-AN on my last playthrough. I know about the statue/water filter/geological research whatsits the Architechs left behind, please do not make me retrace my steps just for that. :smallannoyed:
They also didn’t seem to put as much effort into making it feel like a world rather than a game that takes place underwater.

Lots of zones that are empty or nearly empty with only one species in it, all the Prawn suit arms littering the deepest levels with no explanation, even the design of the Oxygen plants feel more like ‘notice me, I’m a powerup!’ rather than something living in an ecosystem.
Additionally they had to redo the main quest at least once during development, which I think is what resulted in the part you start out with kind of trailing off, and breaking a bit if you complete steps out of sequence. This does not make it better, but hopefully they learned enough from that not to break it that way again if they ever make Subnautica 3.



Completely agree with all of this. I'll also add that the strategically placed oxygen plants serve to make the game feel more like a platformer than an exploration/survival game. You're following along the stage the devs made for you rather than exploring.




Second Seatruck complaints. While I’m glad they made an attempt to shake things up, I wouldn’t miss the Seatruck if they never brought it back in a sequel.

Part of the problem for me was that it seems to be more durable than the Seamoth, with no effort on the player’s part. Combine that with the lack of mid-sized predators in most zones, and I never really felt threatened the way I did in Subnautica 1.
I will argue that the Snowfox was even worse though: too fragile to be useful, hard to steer, not a lot of customization options, the only plus it has is that you can pick it up and carry it.

A lot of this is simple sound design and atmosphere. In the original, the sounds and environment all work to keep things tense at all time. In Below Zero nothing ever shuts up. Ever. There's something roaring, someone talking, or some jaunty tune playing almost constantly. The original is good at suggesting things and making the player's imagination go wild about what might be lurking in the darkness. The sequel goes "HEY LOOK AT THIS! ISN'T THIS SCARY" for 20 hours straight. When you get right down to it, nothing in the original game is all that threatening. You have to mess up pretty badly to die once you know what you're doing. The difference is that it feels dangerous.

[Sermil]

Man: Trouble at the old game development factory
Woman: What is it?
Man: Microsoft bought Activision-Blizzard.
Woman: Oh no, how are you supposed to compete against that?
Man: I don't know, I'm just trying to make a game! I wasn't expecting the Microsoft acquisition!

CLIPPY bursts into room
CLIPPY: NO-one expects the Microsoft acquisition! Our chief weapon is money!

(making the rounds)

[Anarchic Fox]

Clippy: Hi there! It looks like you're trying to form a union.

[Sermil]

Clippy: Hi there! It looks like you're trying to form a union.

Would you like me to explain why that's a bad idea?

[Rynjin]

Would you like me to explain why that's a bad idea?

Clippy: I'm asking the questions here. Would you like me to kick this up the chain to your supervisor?