Microsoft accquires Activision Blizzard

[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?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-m...-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 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.