A short history of Activision Blizzard or how... - Page 35

---

On June 07 2010 21:32 LunarC wrote:

Way to take a relatively insignificant post and blow its significance to a grossly large degree. Ignoring the ridiculousness of BrTarolg's claim, you are saying that Starcraft 2 is full of features from release and that you will be buying it. Did you even read the original post? Kotick more or less said that he plans to make Battle.net 2.0 a goldmine for himself.

Have fun with your "features", I think I'll go play a good game that was NOT made with the backing intent of generating as much revenue as possible. Like Brood War.

---

---

On June 16 2010 10:57 Barrin wrote:
I spent ~ $1,000 on WoW since it's beginning.

Regretted every dime of it. Throughout that whole time I was reminescing on how awesome it was when you could just buy a game and that was fucking that.

Imma buy sc2, but I hope I wont regret it.

I'm not sure how much I agree with the premium map thing. I am a quality mapmaker myself and I don't really care for this feature. I like playing quality maps for free, and I don't mind spending 100 hours making a badass map that everyone can play for free.

edit: btw my WoW account has been inactive for 10 months. woot.

---

---

On June 16 2010 09:46 Wayfarer wrote:
A lot of people in this thread don't seem to understand that the guy's job is to make money. If he succeeds in making more money in the long term, he has done his job well.

Blizzard and Infinity Ward's games are like the Porsches of the gaming industry. Their games are awesome. I have gotten hundreds of hours of fun from War3 and SC. Now, for the first time, it looks like you are going to have to pay more for the games than other games, and more than you did in the past. It's not surprising, because I would probably still buy SC2 if it cost $150, and a lot of you would too.

People should not be surprised that corporations want to make money---the most money they can. Again, if you don't like it, don't buy the game, and see how much it changes things.

---

---

On June 18 2010 14:18 hydratie wrote:
A question in a GameSpot interview sort of confirms that Activision has at least some control over Blizzard.

"GS: Also during the call, Bobby Kotick talked about a "culture of thrift" in the company. But people seem to think with Blizzard, you just give them the resources they want and then step back, letting them do what they do. Are they exempt from that culture of thrift?

TT: No, and I don't think they want to be exempt from that. The culture of thrift isn't about not investing in the games. It's exactly about investing in the games. If we don't waste money on golden toilets and what have you, that gives us the resources to invest in the games so we make a great game. Subsequently, it gives us the ability to spend big in marketing a game.

I don't know if you've been at our offices. We've had the same office since forever, and we just replaced the duct tape on the carpet because it became a trip hazard down the stairs. And that took five years to get done. So we are thrifty in the areas where frankly, the consumer doesn't see value. We are not thrifty in the areas where the consumer sees the value, which is in the game development.

That's why we added 300 headcount to Blizzard's development team, 900 headcount to the customer service team, 300 headcount around the Call of Duty franchise. There are many areas where we are making massive investments to improve the gamer experience, and then there are areas where we think it's not worth it. So we don't have a company gym, cafeteria, and valet parking. Because the gamer doesn't care about that. They don't see value in any of that. Go talk to Blizzard or the Treyarch guys or the Sledgehammer guys. We put the money where the gamer's going to see it."

http://e3.gamespot.com/story/6266573/3ds-is-brilliant-activision-coo-

---

---

GS: What are you doing to ensure Call of Duty doesn't have the same problem with too much of it on the marketplace?

TT: With Call of Duty, we actually have the opposite problem. There is so much demand for so many new products, features, and services, we have not been able to deliver with Call of Duty...that I would say we're behind the curve. That community wants fresh new content, and so far, we've only been able to provide it through downloadable content packs. They want so many different things: customization opportunities, different gameplay modes, playing in teams and leagues and tournaments, prize play. We tested more than 25 different product features and services with the fan base and the response has just been phenomenal. Our issue is just making sure we have enough top-notch development talent to deliver that in a way that meets the very high standards the community has set. We're behind the curve, we're not meeting all the needs, and we've got some catching up to do.

---

---

GS: Also during the call, Bobby Kotick talked about a "culture of thrift" in the company. But people seem to think with Blizzard, you just give them the resources they want and then step back, letting them do what they do. Are they exempt from that culture of thrift?

TT: No, and I don't think they want to be exempt from that. The culture of thrift isn't about not investing in the games. It's exactly about investing in the games. If we don't waste money on golden toilets and what have you, that gives us the resources to invest in the games so we make a great game. Subsequently, it gives us the ability to spend big in marketing a game.

I don't know if you've been at our offices. We've had the same office since forever, and we just replaced the duct tape on the carpet because it became a trip hazard down the stairs. And that took five years to get done. So we are thrifty in the areas where frankly, the consumer doesn't see value. We are not thrifty in the areas where the consumer sees the value, which is in the game development.

That's why we added 300 headcount to Blizzard's development team, 900 headcount to the customer service team, 300 headcount around the Call of Duty franchise. There are many areas where we are making massive investments to improve the gamer experience, and then there are areas where we think it's not worth it. So we don't have a company gym, cafeteria, and valet parking. Because the gamer doesn't care about that. They don't see value in any of that. Go talk to Blizzard or the Treyarch guys or the Sledgehammer guys. We put the money where the gamer's going to see it.

---

---

GS: Activision's not too popular with some gamers after Kotick's comments about taking the fun out of development, the Brutal Legend lawsuit, or the Infinity Ward drama earlier this year. How do you deal with that negative perception? Is it something you can see affecting the bottom line at all?

TT: I would say this: When you become the number one in any industry, you automatically get a target painted on your back. That's just a fact of life, so you have to be able to deal with this. I think there's a very vocal minority that expresses very strong opinions. But at the end of the day, if you look at the overall results we've delivered, 2009 was a very difficult year in the industry. And we have succeeded in that environment because gamers continue to buy our games...because we market the franchise and not the company, and they get a great entertainment experience. So that's the most important thing.

---

---

When Tippl joined Activision in 2005, he brought with him several years of executive experience with highly-successful consumer goods company Procter & Gamble, which is home for products ranging from toilet paper to potato chips to laundry detergent. He still draws from that mass market experience.

“When people come up and tell me, ‘how can you possibly make another Call of Duty,’ I always tell them that I used to work for a company that every year had to figure out how to make a white shirt whiter,” Tippl said. “And [Procter & Gamble] have been doing that for 35 years with a product like Tide.”

He continued, “You’re telling me with all the opportunities we have, and the technologies and the content ... and all the different stories, the characters that we can develop, that we can’t innovate on a franchise for 10 years? Give me a break. Then we’re just not doing our job.”

---

---

Activision has been ramping up its Call of Duty development schedule with new games in the works from Sledgehammer, Treyarch, and Infinity Ward, and it also has an Asian-focused online game in the works. The publisher even dedicated a business division to the franchise, but there seems to be little worry about flooding the market with Call of Duty titles. During the event, Activision chief operating officer Thomas Tippl said the publisher has recognized the "[first-person shooter] audience has an insatiable appetite for great new content."

The executives covered more than just its popular military shooter series in the event. Kotick set a goal to see Activision become "the world's most profitable entertainment company" in 5 to 10 years. He specifically noted that the most profitable franchises rising to prominence today are originating in gaming and then migrating to other media, where in previous years those properties were more likely to start as films.

One profitable part of the gaming industry Activision is looking to get into is the used-game market. Kotick said the publisher sees a $500 million opportunity in second-hand sales and is considering how it can get a slice of the pie. Rather than opening up its own used-game stores to compete with GameStop, the publisher suggested it would work with existing retailers to come up with new solutions. For example, Kotick suggested offering used sellers some sort of value-added content for a cut of whatever a used Activision game sells for.

---

---

On June 19 2010 06:30 Longshank wrote:
I can't see anything spectacular in the new bits. What am I missing?

---

---

[B] I am not trying to be a Kotick/Activision defender here, but if you honestly expect those articles to provoke a negative response you chose poorly.

---

---

WSJ: If you could snap your fingers, and instantly make one change in your company, what would it be, and why?

Mr. Kotick: I would have Call of Duty be an online subscription service tomorrow. When you think about what the audience's interests are and how you could really satisfy bigger audiences with more inspired, creative opportunities, I would love to see us have an online Call of Duty world. I think our players would just have so much of a more compelling experience.

WSJ: Is that coming?

Mr. Kotick: Hopefully.

WSJ: Are the customers ready for it?

Mr. Kotick: I think our audiences are clamoring for it. If you look at what they're playing on Xbox Live today, we've had 1.7 billion hours of multiplayer play on Live. I think we could do a lot more to really satisfy the interests of the customers. I think we could create so many things, and make the game even more fun to play. We haven't really had a chance to do that yet, so that would be my snap of the fingers.

---

---

On June 18 2010 18:21 rK wrote:


Employees don't get perks, have to wait five years for new duct tape, have all the fun wrung out of their jobs or get fired outright...Kotick rakes in tens of millions a year and drowns baby kittens

---