EDIT: "Bobby Kotick will continue to serve as CEO of Activision Blizzard. [...] he and his team will maintain their focus on driving efforts to further strengthen the company’s culture."
Shame on you, Microsoft.
For a moment, I was truly hopeful that we might see some reinvigoration for blundered projects like the Warcraft III reforged.
Perhaps even some hope that Microsoft might breathe new life into Starcraft II, which still stands as an incredible game.
/sigh
Unfortunately even under new management I don't see Starcraft getting much love, the focus is now on cross-platform games and RTS games are PC only (which is a small niche compared to the overall market).
I mean now that MS owns them maybe they can pull a Win11 :p
The game never really felt that great after Ben Brode left. Battlegrounds was pretty OK though.
Smaller M&A where it's easier to swap the leader (like a startup - which most of us are used to) is MUCH easier/cheaper/faster than swapping out an established CEO of a public company.
They'll do it because he's a liability and they want to make a statement to the new company - but it'll be slow.
To be honest, I think Microsoft and Activision deserve each other.
Realistically, there's a high chance that within a few months of the acquisition being completed he'll be expected to leave quietly.
Anyway, I think this acquisition will actually stop the bleeding snd create some stability
So that might be part of it.
https://twitter.com/stephentotilo/status/1407658278893592579
> Once the deal closes, the Activision Blizzard business will report to Phil Spencer, CEO, Microsoft Gaming.
So no, they aren't keeping him around. Good call.
They wouldn't muddy their happy upbeat acquisition announcement by mentioning they're pushing him out, though.
So it's wrong to draw any conclusions yet.
For example, Activision had a successful franchise Call of Duty that did releases every 2 years or so. Kotick’s insight was that they could release one every year and basically print money. He was right. He then used that money to acquire Blizzard, a company that had many beloved franchises. He then applied those same principles to the running of Blizzard, to the point where the company releases half baked, buggy, awful excuses for games. An example of this is Warcraft III Reforged. They did it because re-releases of old games are a reliable way to monetise nostalgia.
And that’s just the somewhat justifiable part. Because making money is good, right? Shareholders love that shit.
What’s less defensible is the toxic work culture that was fostered under him, where sexual harassment was endemic. Of course he never saw the fallout of that. They fired some patsies and called it a day.
To be fair though, they put two studios on it, which is very unlike other annual games, and a much better approach for WLB and avoiding (some) crunch.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/activision-videogames-bobby-kot... — mirror at https://archive.fo/fzdAv
And if you're completely out of the loop: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Department_of_Fair_...
> The goal that I had (...) was to take all the fun out of making video games.
> The executive said that he has tried to instill into the company culture "skepticism, pessimism, and fear" of the global economic downturn
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/activision-games-to-bypass...
Hopefully woke culture will take more of a toll on US tech and we will see more US companies opening up in Europe. The US tech centralization is bad for the world (and US consumers).
For games to be successful today, they need popularity. Twitch streamers need to play it. Youtubers need to make "how-tos", and word of mouth is king. Activision drove the final nail in their coffin with the PR nightmare this year. No amount of necromancy (Warcraft Reforged, Classic WoW, Diablo 2) can save the company long term.
One could argue that Microsoft would have paid more, and I’m sure some enterprising lawyers will get paid by tricking some shareholders into suing over that, but that’s like arguing with the waves about when high tide is.
Who is going to be able to compete with Xbox Game Pass?
'You have a choice, you can pick Microsoft or Disney. More options would only confuse you'
Not to mention the potential platform abuses whereby MS can now gate their property behind Windows and Xbox.
And I’m not even that creative. Surely MS will get a return on their $70,000,000,000 investment whether it’s better for the gaming economy and consumers, or not.
Given that nearly every popular $60 game now has microtransactions, loot boxes, (paid) season passes, and maybe even (paid) DLC, there's absolutely no reason for the price increase. They're already making buckets of cash (and turning a profit) at the "just $60" price point.
Breaking it up just means you end up with a worst product for the consumer and a higher expense.
Whether or not it's legal, it should not be celebrated.
How many indie games are there for Xbox?
However, they could also be withholding that until next week so they can get more news out of this acquisition, saying that he (and hopefully a lot of management) is stepping down would make a lot of news on its own, doing it now would muddle it.
Joking aside (I got over my Microsoft hatred when they started to finally embrace Linux and FOSS, YMMV (though I was salty about Nokia ditching Maemo!)), I have a deja vu:
Microsoft + Elop -> Nokia + Elop -> Nokia + Elop = Microsoft.
Microsoft + Ybarra -> Blizzard + Ybarra -> Blizzard + Ibarra = Microsoft.
Sure, I don't mention Kotick. I don't give a shit about Activision's IP, so no problem for me there. Its Blizzard's IP which I like, or perhaps rather, liked. Cause its gone downhill.. ehh.. 'somewhat'.
Tho, it certainly fits what MS has been going for with its gaming division; Game pass ultimate has a weird lack of „third party aaa” titles in certain genres.
For example EA Play is included in game pass ultimate, but by now all the new EA stuff is locked behind “EA Play pro”.
Having the whole Acti/Blizz lineup in there would be quite the offering. Particularly all the Call of Duties were never really sold in a “get all of them!” way. Now all of them might end up for “free” on game pass.
Beyond petty nonsense - Sure wish we had some antitrust laws in this country. The consolidation of every industry gross.
Also just in general, it'd be nice if the game itself worked as well as the in-game store which never has any issues.
Microsoft buying Activision Blizzard just put them in number 3 slot. Tencent and Sony are far bigger in gaming. if Apple lawsuit didn't take down Apple store just forced Apple to allows third party payment option. i don't think Microsoft will get slap with a antitrust. Microsoft isn't even number 1 in gaming.
Not to say that will happen. Just that if it does, it wouldn't be on dollar size in game sales alone.
The evaluation is between Sony and Microsoft and this shifts things pretty significantly toward Microsoft.
What’s left to really show they’re going this direction is to release a VR that works on Xbox.
1. Buyout the company / developers and they now report to Microsoft.
2. Use a subscription model (game pass) to reduce and undercut the game, SaSS price close to free.
3. Sell the game on other platforms for the RRP.
In the case of software like GitHub, the best tools are now free forever on a near unlimited scalable cloud which many competitors cannot compete with, especially free. Squeezing the competitors to reduce prices and exit entirely. (Extinguish)
OpenAI is next up on this.
Not to mention that ATVI is a behemoth but their catalog isn't the same "everything-store" as 2000s ATVI (or current EA), it's a few (big) franchises. Hell, the Bethesda deal had more franchises involved.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/microsoft-buy-activision-bliz...
Diablo 4 being pushed back until Microsoft could oversee its development and release is pretty much a death sentence in my book.
