Activision ruining WoW?

11/03/2018 10:57 AMPosted by Daiyu
I canceled the 6 month recurring subscriptions for both my WoW accounts today because of this nonsense. Fans bring honest questions forward at Blizzcon and the representatives on stage either insult them, be sarcastic or have their social media shills attack the person and spam nonsense all over twitter and stuff.

Yes Blizzard put in work into the products but you cannot ignore the facts. Blizzard is a company making stuff, their employees are being paid, they do not work for free. Their primary goal is to make customers happy so they continue paying money. Blizzard has a standard of quality in the game industry that is practically unrivaled so when fans see a trainwreck like this they get scared and concerned. They start asking questions like "How did this come to pass? Who is responsible? Why did they think this was a good idea?"

If your customer isn't happy and asks a civil question that has no profanity or personal attacks against the representative then you need to realize you made a bad decision in creating your product, not telling your customer "You are wrong." or if you don't have a phone.

Instead people defending this nonsense on social media and saying they would have thrown the guy out of the convention he paid to attend and broke no rules or terms of service just because he asked a question they didn't like. Also said people on social media are race baiting and gender baiting while demonizing the person that asked a very valid question.


And this has what to do with this thread and what are you talking about ?
Sorry but this thread is about 'Activision' ruining Blizzard and many have pointed out how that is not how stock companies work.

The new Diablo Mobile game actually looks interesting if people can back up a little and see it for what it is : A new game in the Diablo universe not tied to the main storyline / games.
11/03/2018 10:40 AMPosted by Monsterskill
Right well I guess it's pretty funny that this has happened to numerous game studios that Activision has acquired and run into the ground. But no sure, let's pretend that they had nothing to do with it and all of these companies were just poorly run themselves.

Here was a list in 2012:

https://www.gamesradar.com/exactly-how-many-studios-has-activision-closed-generation-exactly-many/

BTW you can add Bungie to that list. And it's funny because everyone always said each of these companies had "full creative control" over their IPs.
Activision is those companies' publisher. That gives them a relationship with the studio that doesn't exist with Blizzard. Blizzard Entertainment publishes their own games.

So instead of pretending, lets make sure we know how the system is set up before getting on our soapboxes.

11/03/2018 10:40 AMPosted by Monsterskill
BTW the vast majority of people with your colored text openly shill for Blizzard, and your post was also a shill post.
Since you want to focus on this, let's.

All you types see are the posts that don't go along with the lynch mob mentality, when in fact we do post negative criticisms against Bliz, Wow, etc. But since those negative posts don't neatly fit your narratives, they are conveniently ignored. I believe is was Neall (?) that authored a long, detailed thread about how Bliz quality is literally falling more apart with each content release. Hell, I've even been disciplined by the MVP admins for going overboard criticizing Bliz. No, Monsterskill, we post out feelings the same as everyone else. But unlike your white text compatriots, you choose to cherry pick the ones that allow you to attack us based off our color rather than our words.

And by the way, in order to be a shill, the relationship between the shiller and the one being shilled for has to be concealed, unknown. MVP's relationship with Bliz
is obvious, overt. But I guess as long as a word has a nice ring to it and is dismissive enough, despite not being applicable, it sticks.


shill
noun
1.
an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.

majority
noun
1.
the greater number.

Hope that helps.
Anyway, whether it was Activision or just Blizzard itself that did this, the reasons are pretty clear as stated here:

11/03/2018 09:01 AMPosted by Monsterskill
It's basic economics. In the early days, gaming had relatively low barriers to entry. Anyone who knew how to code could write a game. They didn't cost a whole lot to make, and there were a LOT of different games. People tried many different kinds of games and there was not a lot of brand loyalty. The result was a competitive market that encouraged the creation of the most awesome games.

Then, these awesome games developed a strong following with die hard fans. They reaped insane profits making sequels. Huge companies ended up being formed around these games. The result? Brand loyalty, large market share, limited competition, and reduced innovation. And modern standards for games have resulted in games being a huge undertaking to develop. It now takes millions to make a AAA game. The result is a noncompetitive industry dominated by a few players.

It makes sense that the end product would be relatively worse in quality than it was in the past. Furthermore, you should consider the fact that WoW has never raised its subscription fee. This means the game's relative price has actually dropped over time. In a market, the price USUALLY reflects the quality of the good. They need to make up revenue somehow, and so, it makes sense that they would add a cash shop and incentivize the purchase of tokens, boosts, etc to supplement their sub revenue. What you are seeing is just standard economics. If people say "the game is worse now relatively", the price of the sub certainly reflects that. If people say they are changing the game to encourage cash shop and game services purchases, it makes perfect sense that Blizzard would. Not raising the sub fee to at least keep up with inflation every few years was a really dumb decision, and it certainly had an impact on the quality of the game. It sort of HAD to economically.

When people say "big companies ruined x", they aren't really wrong. It's almost always true -- even with economies of scale because you still have issues with monopoly behavior. WoW has(had?) an effective monopoly (or very close to it) on the MMORPG genre, and Warcraft/Starcraft was similar for the multiplayer RTS genre. As expected, the early iterations of these games were widely acclaimed and considered excellent while the company was building its brand in these sectors. The later versions are generally regarded as relatively worse in quality. And that's because there is no reason for them to be better. It's actually surprising when a company with an already huge brand and large market share comes out with a great, consumer friendly product.
11/03/2018 10:54 AMPosted by Somalion
11/03/2018 10:40 AMPosted by Monsterskill
Right well I guess it's pretty funny that this has happened to numerous game studios that Activision has acquired and run into the ground. But no sure, let's pretend that they had nothing to do with it and all of these companies were just poorly run themselves.


*deep breath*
Activision did not Aquire Blizzard, Activision was Aquired by Vivendi Games, Vivendi Games ( a stock umbrella) renamed itself to Activision-Blizzard who then purchased themselves from Vivendi and then bought King games to fold under their stock umbrella.


so its the same people who owned it originally? vivendi=activision-blizzard? in other words its just vivendi-blizzard with a new name? or did they have to fire people and replace them with activision people to become activision-blizzard?
<span class="truncated">...</span>

*deep breath*
Activision did not Aquire Blizzard, Activision was Aquired by Vivendi Games, Vivendi Games ( a stock umbrella) renamed itself to Activision-Blizzard who then purchased themselves from Vivendi and then bought King games to fold under their stock umbrella.


so its the same people who owned it originally? vivendi=activision-blizzard? in other words its just vivendi-blizzard with a new name? or did they have to fire people and replace them with activision people to become activision-blizzard?


Well, a LOT of the original devs are gone, and the Activision CEO is now CEO of Activision-Blizzard. And Vivendi never owned Activision. Activision merged with Vivendi games, which was the parent company of Blizzard. Also, there are plenty of detailed records of people from Vivendi trying to fire Bobby Kotick and being unsuccessful.

Anyway, whether it was Activision or Blizzard that wrecked WoW, it's irrelevant. There is every incentive right now for the game to get worse for a lot of people, but more addictive and appealing for hardcore addicts and obsessive gamblers/collectors who spend lots of money on gold/cash shop items. WoW was really good relatively when there was a lot of competition in MMORPGs. They were forced to innovate and create a great game. Then, once they took huge market share, the downward spiral began.

Monopolies are bad, kids.
Get out of here activision.
11/03/2018 10:11 AMPosted by Levíathan
11/03/2018 08:09 AMPosted by Valarien
Activision literally owns Blizzard now. Theres no separating the two.
Activision-Blizzard, the holding company (not a publishing company, not a development company), owns Blizzard Entertainment.

Activision the publishing company (not Activision-Blizzard) and Blizzard Entertainment are lateral partners, along with three other companies, none of which own any of the others.
09/07/2018 11:42 AMPosted by Ythisens
Activision Publishing is involved in franchises like Call of Duty, Destiny, etc but is a separate company from Blizzard, however we're both under the same umbrella known as Activision Blizzard.

In the same way that PepsiCo is the owner of Frito-Lay and Pepsi, but the people who make Pepsi don't ever touch the chips.
11/03/2018 10:09 AMPosted by Monsterskill
You think the shareholders don't have a say in how a company is run? Well guess who has a ton of shares and directs the company?
Do you think Sharholders micromanage the features of one of the games, of one of the divisions, of one of the franchises? Of course not. Shareholders want profit. If profit comes, then the money makers stay the course. If Wow is being permitted to stay the course, then the shareholders are getting what they want.


Excuse me, but have you heard of Diablo Immortal? One CANNOT look at that and say with 100% confidence that it had NOTHING to do with Activision dictating to Blizzard....
eek well is wow gonna be mobile phone only next?
It's not a partnership, it was a buyout. Two heads of the same hydra. Activision would have to be bought out of their majority stake.
11/03/2018 11:02 AMPosted by Monsterskill
shill
noun
1.
an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.

majority
noun
1.
the greater number.

Hope that helps.
Oh and you're a dictionary quoter too? Well again, you've fabricated meaning where it doesn't exist:

To the first definition: "Acts", not is. Acts. And the relationship needs to be covert in order for the act to work.

And your second: I give two examples and you take it as the only two occurrences?

You're agenda is exposed. So much that you'll misinterpret dictionary definitions.
11/03/2018 11:54 AMPosted by Levíathan
11/03/2018 11:02 AMPosted by Monsterskill
shill
noun
1.
an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.

majority
noun
1.
the greater number.

Hope that helps.
Oh and your a dictionary quoter too? Well again, you've fabricated meaning where ot doesn't exist:

To the first definition: "Acts", not is. Acts. And the relationship needs to be covert in order for the act to work.

And your second: I give two examples and you take it as the only two occurances?

You're agenda is exposed. So much that you'll misinterpret dictionary definitions.


You confused both forms of "your" in your post, too. Sad. "Acts" does not need to be covert at all. Try again.

**occurrences

Anyway, whether it was or wasn't Activision that ruined the game THIS TIME, they have a long history of doing it in the past. None of us are in on the executive decisions so we don't know. And either way, I still stand my original argument explaining why this is happening. The conditions Blizzard/Activision/whatever magical fairies in charge have created with their decisions coupled with their current control of the market only favor the game getting worse. They have every reason to make the game as painful as possible to play without using the cash shop, as addictive as possible, and as barebones as possible.
11/03/2018 11:27 AMPosted by Fiveshot
Excuse me, but have you heard of Diablo Immortal? One CANNOT look at that and say with 100% confidence that it had NOTHING to do with Activision dictating to Blizzard....
Please, Fiveshot, understand the difference. Activision the publishing company had nothing to do with it. Activision-Blizzard the holding company surely played a role. But you have taken what I said about micromanaging the features of a game of one of its franchises and changed over to the involvement in starting a new IP, something that is at the capital level.
11/03/2018 11:56 AMPosted by Monsterskill


You confused both forms of "your" in your post, too. Sad. "Acts" does not need to be covert at all. Try again.

**occurrences
Of course it does or else it will be exposed as an act and fail.

And now you've resorted to gammar and spelling as rebuttals to add to your attacks based off color.

But thanks. Quick phone typing can lead to all sorts of typos. I'll fix them up.
11/03/2018 12:02 PMPosted by Levíathan
11/03/2018 11:56 AMPosted by Monsterskill


You confused both forms of "your" in your post, too. Sad. "Acts" does not need to be covert at all. Try again.

**occurrences
Of course it does or else it will be exposed as an act and fail.

And now you've resorted to gammar and spelling as rebuttals to add to your attacks based off color.

But thanks. Quick phone typing can lead to all sorts of typos. I'll fix them up.


So you think the acting President is just faking being President?
I will say WB completely ruined Turbine and LOTRO. That game still survives but is nothing like the game Turbine originally put together under Shadows of Angmar. Not sure if that's the case here with Activision but large parent corporations have screwed up everything from insurance to gaming. Not pretty.
At this point i can differentiate Activision from EA
I think we can agree regardless, WHOEVER is making the decisions behind these great games are in some type of disconnect with gaming. BFA has been a major letdown for the majority of the playerbase, hard to swallow myself. I truly do feel terrible for whoever at blizzard loves what they do and has a great love for gaming. The game CONTINUES every expansion to lean towards the casual side of gaming when blizzard was BUILT upon hardcore gaming. Blizzcon helped players see a face we NEVER wanted to see from Blizzard.

Even though the Diablo franchise is separate from WoW, the backlash will bleed onto WoW and the other products blizzard has created. Friends I have played WoW/Diablo/HOTS for years are saying they are completely done with Blizzard, and I understand them, just because this diablo fiasco.

I really hope we can get some type of hail mary to save the franchises WE ALL love. I know its cliche, but truly, vote with your wallets.
11/03/2018 11:58 AMPosted by Levíathan
11/03/2018 11:27 AMPosted by Fiveshot
Excuse me, but have you heard of Diablo Immortal? One CANNOT look at that and say with 100% confidence that it had NOTHING to do with Activision dictating to Blizzard....
Please, Fiveshot, understand the difference. Activision the publishing company had nothing to do with it. Activision-Blizzard the holding company surely played a role. But you have taken what I said about micromanaging the features of a game of one of its franchises and changed over to the involvement in starting a new IP, something that is at the capital level.


Word salad, semantics, double talk. Embarrassing.