Huh, now that I read that, it makes me wonder too. Maybe Kotick was put in by Vivendi, and then when Activision bought itself from Vivendi, he lost his position and Hirshberg came in?
Kotick served as CEO of Activision from 1991 until 2008 when he became CEO of Activision Blizzard, the holding company that was created when Activison and Vivendi Games merged.
Activision Blizzard has two principal operating units: Activision Publishing and Blizzard Entertainment.
Hirshberg has been President and CEO of Activision Publishing since 2010.
Morhaime has been CEO of Blizzard Entertainment since he cofounded that company in 1991.
Honestly, when game devs receive threats for minor balance tweaks to a game, I think they should nerf that aspect of the game into oblivion for awhile. People getting riled up because their weapon fires .02 seconds slower? Make it the slowest firing weapon in the game for a couple months to throw off their play-style. Hurray for being spiteful!
What they need to do is throw in a Pink texture patch for that gun for a while. Have it shooting bubbles or rainbows, and have it scream like a baby when it fires. Completely drive the idiot out of the game.
I completely agree with you. I've raised myself amidst a lot of difficulties and I always thought of myself as somebody not too bright, but I mean, I always could make the distinction between video game violence and real life violence (so maybe I'm smart after all? In comparison to the average, that is), and I always wanted to think that children are smart enough to recognize it too. Pardon my french, but screw me, I was so, so wrong.
Okay, I've seen a lot of bad during my childhood in my real life, maybe that helped separate stuff, but damn.. I never thought there are actually people who can afford to grow up so detached from reality that they are unable to grasp that words (and especially words that are stored forever in databases on the internet) have dire consequences, even on the internet. If somebody decides to take legal action against you in retaliation, or you actually kill somebody (there are actual people who can't separate video games from reality and they commit actual aggression because of it - yes, most of the bull you see on TV is media fabrication so the real cases are seldom public knowledge), well, that's a stigma that you won't ever wash off and just 'cause you weren't a whole enough human to live in a society, doesn't deem you above its rules.
I still say, the most effective action you can do if you are really that pissed off at a company is to boycott them, don't buy their next product. That at least can't possibly have legal implications, but if enough of the people, who make death threats realize this (and the silent majority too, of course), then it might actually have an effect.
Antari said:
Church185 said:
Honestly, when game devs receive threats for minor balance tweaks to a game, I think they should nerf that aspect of the game into oblivion for awhile. People getting riled up because their weapon fires .02 seconds slower? Make it the slowest firing weapon in the game for a couple months to throw off their play-style. Hurray for being spiteful!
What they need to do is throw in a Pink texture patch for that gun for a while. Have it shooting bubbles or rainbows, and have it scream like a baby when it fires. Completely drive the idiot out of the game.
What they need to do is throw in a Pink texture patch for that gun for a while. Have it shooting bubbles or rainbows, and have it scream like a baby when it fires. Completely drive the idiot out of the game.
What they need to do is throw in a Pink texture patch for that gun for a while. Have it shooting bubbles or rainbows, and have it scream like a baby when it fires. Completely drive the idiot out of the game.
There's a gun you can obtain during a sidequest that screams like hell when you shoot it and it slows you down to a crawling speed. According to the quest it's made people mad in the past. (As far as I know you can randomly loot other talking guns too, I just remember this one distinctly, cuz it was powerful and I used it a lot - I actually had to lower the volume of the game because it screamed so loudly that I couldn't hear my mate over skype -, because it was fun to be a turret). It's not pink and it doesn't blow bubbles, but that's not too far fetched from the concept. /methinks
Update: Youtube link [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWYjLurySU0]
What they need to do is throw in a Pink texture patch for that gun for a while. Have it shooting bubbles or rainbows, and have it scream like a baby when it fires. Completely drive the idiot out of the game.
There's a gun you can obtain during a sidequest that screams like hell when you shoot it and it slows you down to a crawling speed. According to the quest it's made people mad in the past. (As far as I know you can randomly loot other talking guns too, I just remember this one distinctly, cuz it was powerful and I used it a lot, because it was fun to be a turret).
Ya I wouldn't be making it powerful in any way. If the game and the gun are THAT important. It doesn't need to be in the game. But you can't let that sort of thing change the path of a game .. so just change it up for a little while. You'll either have a crazy on your hands or nothing will happen at all. I'd bet very heavy on the nothing happening side.
Well Activision-Blizzard was always sloppy on the PvP/MMO balancing, due to all kinds of lazy on their side, but they don't deserve death threats. Especially when it's a contest to be as menacing as possible. That's really a sociopathic behavior.
Even if the targets don't take action against them, the only positive thing about the recent privacy issues during job interviews, when they review an applicant's online social activities is that people will eventually learn how permanent a stigma their antisocial behavior and stupidity can be.
I mean, just who doesn't love a person whose excuse is: "I wasn't really serious when I threatened (him/her) about following (his/her) family and murdering them in cold blood." A lot of people abuse the limited amount of free speech the Internet still offers and it seems employers are tired of this too. So yeah, good luck, ruin your life and be an asshole, I'm sure it will eventually pay off.
I'm a little surprised this hasn't happened enough to be expected.
That's not a justification or even acceptance.
CriticKitten said:
"Oh, you threatened our devs with murder? You're grounded, mister. That's a two week account ban from our servers. Now you can't play CoD via online multiplayer, since you're so intent on murdering our devs. Hopefully next time you'll express your disagreement in more constructive ways."
Okay, so...Say I hypothetically threaten Joe Blow, the person who patched Fake Shooter for Hypothetical Studios and I threaten him from my email of [email protected]
Unless my gamertag is also squeegeebeckenheim, how do you ban me from the Fake Shooter servers? these were threats that game from outside the service, to my knowledge. Or what if it's tweeted? I mean, shifting from fake examples to the real world, a guy on Facebook got pissed off at me and threatened my mom. Facebook doesn't even doing anything about that sort of thing. I mean, you can report, but the threat to rape and harm/kill my mom was met with no action.
I can call the police, but I know the guy's name, his address, his place of business, etc. but what do we do with a thousand faceless kids on the web? Can we even reasonably police this sort of thing? Will Twitter start giving details so bans can be issued? I doubt that, so do we go to the authorities? It seems like @fakename will get away with this sort of thing.
It'd be nice to give them a time out, but can it really be applied enough to send the message?
Genocidicles said:
Kind of off topic, but this guy is the CEO of Activision? What happened to Kotick? Is that greedy bastard out of the business?
You know how we are increasing in the ownership of digital copies of games? I think it would be fair to make or amend EULAs to where if a person decides to attack a developer with acts of violence or death threats, then their rights of usage and ownership of that game (or to go further, any of the games from that publisher or developer) are forfeit. Can't take change or developer's opinions about things, and you can't be civil about it? Well then, you'll become a non-customer that can no longer buy anything from them anymore - And before you think you can hide behind anonymity and continue your rampage, they have your CC number, DOB and maybe even SS on record, so creating an alt account to get around your ban would likely put you on the grounds of identity theft and/or fraud.
For every gamer smart enough to do their bitching "anonymously", there's five stupid enough to do so out in the open in full view of the devs, gamer tag and all.
The problem I see is twofold: I don't believe the disparity is anywhere near that great, and people will learn fast. The moral here is less "threats are bad" and more "don't get caught," a lesson any bully knows.
And I honestly hope we never come to the point of government intervention. There's no reason Facebook/Twitter/whatever can't police themselves in terms of the minor stuff, and the authorities should be contacted anyway (if you really think there's a bomb threat going on, for example). I mean, if they don't do it, perhaps it will be necessary, but I find that sad.
I think the idea of a "time out" would be great, especially if it was instituted on social media and the like. I'm not entirely convinced we can impliment it in a way to actually effectively curb it, though.
Honestly, when game devs receive threats for minor balance tweaks to a game, I think they should nerf that aspect of the game into oblivion for awhile. People getting riled up because their weapon fires .02 seconds slower? Make it the slowest firing weapon in the game for a couple months to throw off their play-style. Hurray for being spiteful!
What they need to do is throw in a Pink texture patch for that gun for a while. Have it shooting bubbles or rainbows, and have it scream like a baby when it fires. Completely drive the idiot out of the game.
Public shaming, I like it. But only for those who deserve it, it wouldn't be fair to normal players. nerfing the actual gun further would kinda unbalance the game and you also punish non-dickwads who enjoy using it. Other than that, I'm all for giving these idiots a ban. if you go to a store or a restaurant and act like a complete nob, they're not only allowed but expected to refuse you service, I see no reason this should be any different.
Sorry, Activision, COD community is many things, but passionate is not one of them. Angry, troubled, psychotic, egocentric children - yes, passionate - no.
Honestly, when game devs receive threats for minor balance tweaks to a game, I think they should nerf that aspect of the game into oblivion for awhile. People getting riled up because their weapon fires .02 seconds slower? Make it the slowest firing weapon in the game for a couple months to throw off their play-style. Hurray for being spiteful!
You know that's the best solution I've heard off. Since the game is what matters so much to these idiots that's where you can hit them where it hurts. Problem is that could easily be exploited by people who want weapons nerfed.
Something to keep in mind is that it may well be an expression of the Online Disinhibition Effect [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect], otherwise known as the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory [http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/325/699/4fc.jpg].
Generally reasonable people can turn into psychopaths when under the veil of anonymity and without a tangible risk of consequence. It's a sad fact of the internet and human nature. I'm not sure there's really a way to put a stop to it without destroying the basis of the internet.
And then people complained when YouTube attempted to merge YouTube accounts with Google+ accounts, so that real names, rather than aliases, appear next to a comment. There needs to be more accountability in stuff like this.
You know, it's sad that this was predictable if you played Cod for a bit. It really has an awful community but still to threaten to murder them and their families because they changed the fire rate of a gun by 0.2 seconds? These people would want to commit genocide on Riot if their favorite champ got nerfed into unviability.
MCerberus said:
This doesn't surprise me: just look at this picture of a senior Activision exec:
[http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/149666-slowpoke]
In any case, we have this week's contender for most obvious statement. Also Lyte from Riot really needs to publish a book
I would read it, I always loved when he posted in threads to explain why someone was banned. It would probably be depressing but it would be a interesting read anyway.
Honestly, when game devs receive threats for minor balance tweaks to a game, I think they should nerf that aspect of the game into oblivion for awhile. People getting riled up because their weapon fires .02 seconds slower? Make it the slowest firing weapon in the game for a couple months to throw off their play-style. Hurray for being spiteful!
Honestly, when game devs receive threats for minor balance tweaks to a game, I think they should nerf that aspect of the game into oblivion for awhile. People getting riled up because their weapon fires .02 seconds slower? Make it the slowest firing weapon in the game for a couple months to throw off their play-style. Hurray for being spiteful!
Ah yes, but then everyone would be using this method. When everything is nerfed, it's like nothing is nerfed! Hopefully the community would understand the correlation between them being dicks and their favorite game becoming progressively more unplayable. It's not a perfect solution, but it is certainly a recipe for the lulz.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
