Activision?s Bobby Kotick hates developers, innovation, cheap games, you

auronvi

New member
Jul 10, 2009
447
0
0
oliveira8 said:
Dexter111 said:
Can you point the name of Activision in this cover? Did you also went to the future and saw that the 3 Starcraft games are mediocre? And that the 3 parts are actually going to cost full price? And did you read any recap of Blizzcon and watched the new mod tools for Blizzard games? And that Blizzard is going to help modders by making some mods payable, so the mod teams can make some profit out of them? And that those agreements you pointed are probably the same to the Steam ones or any other type of chat programs?(You are aware that they don't have a team working 24/7 to monitor your conversations.)

The only thing that you managed to link Activision greed to Blizzard was the raise of the ticket prizes, and paying for the stream.
You have to be COMPLETELY ignorant to think that Blizzard will be untouched by what Kotick wants out of the company. Open your eyes before you kill yourself when Starcraft II isn't that great.

Just wait and see... watch as Blizzard dissolves into what Activision wants them to be. Pump out game after game and charge you every step of the way!
 

Amnestic

High Priest of Haruhi
Aug 22, 2008
8,946
0
0
auronvi said:
oliveira8 said:
Dexter111 said:
Can you point the name of Activision in this cover? Did you also went to the future and saw that the 3 Starcraft games are mediocre? And that the 3 parts are actually going to cost full price? And did you read any recap of Blizzcon and watched the new mod tools for Blizzard games? And that Blizzard is going to help modders by making some mods payable, so the mod teams can make some profit out of them? And that those agreements you pointed are probably the same to the Steam ones or any other type of chat programs?(You are aware that they don't have a team working 24/7 to monitor your conversations.)

The only thing that you managed to link Activision greed to Blizzard was the raise of the ticket prizes, and paying for the stream.
You have to be COMPLETELY ignorant to think that Blizzard will be untouched by what Kotick wants out of the company. Open your eyes before you kill yourself when Starcraft II isn't that great.

Just wait and see... watch as Blizzard dissolves into what Activision wants them to be. Pump out game after game and charge you every step of the way!
Blizzard isn't owned by Activision. Activision isn't owned by Blizzard. They're both owned by Vivendi. There will be no 'dissolving' because Blizzard as a studio brings in so much on its own and continues to do so without any influence whatsoever from Activision.

'Dissolving' Blizzard into Activision. would likely lose Vivendi a large amount of core consumers who have a lot of brand-faith with Blizzard titles. Pushing Blizzard and Activision closer together is a recipe for failure.
 

oliveira8

New member
Feb 2, 2009
4,726
0
0
auronvi said:
oliveira8 said:
Dexter111 said:
Can you point the name of Activision in this cover? Did you also went to the future and saw that the 3 Starcraft games are mediocre? And that the 3 parts are actually going to cost full price? And did you read any recap of Blizzcon and watched the new mod tools for Blizzard games? And that Blizzard is going to help modders by making some mods payable, so the mod teams can make some profit out of them? And that those agreements you pointed are probably the same to the Steam ones or any other type of chat programs?(You are aware that they don't have a team working 24/7 to monitor your conversations.)

The only thing that you managed to link Activision greed to Blizzard was the raise of the ticket prizes, and paying for the stream.
You have to be COMPLETELY ignorant to think that Blizzard will be untouched by what Kotick wants out of the company. Open your eyes before you kill yourself when Starcraft II isn't that great.

Just wait and see... watch as Blizzard dissolves into what Activision wants them to be. Pump out game after game and charge you every step of the way!
I wont kill myself. But I'm also very well aware that Activision doesn't own Blizzard, and that Blizzard has it's own CEO. Morhaime is still in charge of Blizzard. And both Morhaime and Kotick answer to Vivendi who is the parent company of Blizzard and Activision.

ACTIVISION DID NOT AQUIRE BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT. They became partners once Vivendi merged with Activision.

Vivendi the people who owns Blizzard.
On the other hand IW is OWNED by Activision.
When the merge happened Vivendi got the majority of the stock hold, meaning they IN CHARGE. As Vivendi remains the majority, Blizzard owned by Vivendi kept being a seperate studio. Activision remains Activision with it's satelite studios.(Like IW WHICH IS OWNED BY ACTIVISION)

Here the key people of the company named Activision Blizzard, Inc:

Jean-Bernard Levy, Chairman
Robert Kotick, President and CEO of Activision
Michael Morhaime, President and CEO of Blizzard Entertainment

The name Activision Blizzard, Inc came up because they both are very well knowed betewen the video game media and plublic. More than the Vivendi. When the merge happened it was a no brainer to call that section of Vivendi Activision Blizzard, Inc.

Go to ANY site of Blizzard(WoW forums, Battlenet, Blizzstore.) you won't see the name of Activision. Why? Cause they a separate part of the company. One with it's own CEO and business schemes.

Get it?

Kotick and Morhaime are two different people. Activision and Blizzard are two different studios who belong to a bigger company. Each works independent of the other.
 

johnman

New member
Oct 14, 2008
2,915
0
0
The great thing is that Activision dont make any games that really interest me, so they can disapear off the face of the earth for all I care. I dont want them too obviously but i dont even think I have any gmes by the smaller companies they own.
 

NickCaligo42

New member
Oct 7, 2007
1,371
0
0
darkfire613 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't these all really old quotes?
Also, he's Bobby Fuckin' Kotick. He can say whatever he wants and people will still buy Activision's games.
I'm not. I haven't bought a single one in the last ten years and I'm going to continue not buying them.
 

auronvi

New member
Jul 10, 2009
447
0
0
Amnestic said:
auronvi said:
oliveira8 said:
Dexter111 said:
Can you point the name of Activision in this cover? Did you also went to the future and saw that the 3 Starcraft games are mediocre? And that the 3 parts are actually going to cost full price? And did you read any recap of Blizzcon and watched the new mod tools for Blizzard games? And that Blizzard is going to help modders by making some mods payable, so the mod teams can make some profit out of them? And that those agreements you pointed are probably the same to the Steam ones or any other type of chat programs?(You are aware that they don't have a team working 24/7 to monitor your conversations.)

The only thing that you managed to link Activision greed to Blizzard was the raise of the ticket prizes, and paying for the stream.
You have to be COMPLETELY ignorant to think that Blizzard will be untouched by what Kotick wants out of the company. Open your eyes before you kill yourself when Starcraft II isn't that great.

Just wait and see... watch as Blizzard dissolves into what Activision wants them to be. Pump out game after game and charge you every step of the way!
Blizzard isn't owned by Activision. Activision isn't owned by Blizzard. They're both owned by Vivendi. There will be no 'dissolving' because Blizzard as a studio brings in so much on its own and continues to do so without any influence whatsoever from Activision.

'Dissolving' Blizzard into Activision. would likely lose Vivendi a large amount of core consumers who have a lot of brand-faith with Blizzard titles. Pushing Blizzard and Activision closer together is a recipe for failure.
oliveira8 said:
auronvi said:
oliveira8 said:
Dexter111 said:
Can you point the name of Activision in this cover? Did you also went to the future and saw that the 3 Starcraft games are mediocre? And that the 3 parts are actually going to cost full price? And did you read any recap of Blizzcon and watched the new mod tools for Blizzard games? And that Blizzard is going to help modders by making some mods payable, so the mod teams can make some profit out of them? And that those agreements you pointed are probably the same to the Steam ones or any other type of chat programs?(You are aware that they don't have a team working 24/7 to monitor your conversations.)

The only thing that you managed to link Activision greed to Blizzard was the raise of the ticket prizes, and paying for the stream.
You have to be COMPLETELY ignorant to think that Blizzard will be untouched by what Kotick wants out of the company. Open your eyes before you kill yourself when Starcraft II isn't that great.

Just wait and see... watch as Blizzard dissolves into what Activision wants them to be. Pump out game after game and charge you every step of the way!
I wont kill myself. But I'm also very well aware that Activision doesn't own Blizzard, and that Blizzard has it's own CEO. Morhaime is still in charge of Blizzard. And both Morhaime and Kotick answer to Vivendi who is the parent company of Blizzard and Activision.

ACTIVISION DID NOT AQUIRE BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT. They became partners once Vivendi merged with Activision.

Vivendi the people who owns Blizzard.
On the other hand IW is OWNED by Activision.
When the merge happened Vivendi got the majority of the stock hold, meaning they IN CHARGE. As Vivendi remains the majority, Blizzard owned by Vivendi kept being a seperate studio. Activision remains Activision with it's satelite studios.(Like IW WHICH IS OWNED BY ACTIVISION)

Here the key people of the company named Activision Blizzard, Inc:

Jean-Bernard Levy, Chairman
Robert Kotick, President and CEO of Activision
Michael Morhaime, President and CEO of Blizzard Entertainment

The name Activision Blizzard, Inc came up because they both are very well knowed betewen the video game media and plublic. More than the Vivendi. When the merge happened it was a no brainer to call that section of Vivendi Activision Blizzard, Inc.

Go to ANY site of Blizzard(WoW forums, Battlenet, Blizzstore.) you won't see the name of Activision. Why? Cause they a separate part of the company. One with it's own CEO and business schemes.

Get it?

Kotick and Morhaime are two different people. Activision and Blizzard are two different studios who belong to a bigger company. Each works independent of the other.
I have misunderstood what transpired there then. Thanks for explaining. Then I guess Blizzard will remain untouched.

Kotick should be replaced though. Gamers start buying stock and then write to the company saying you want him gone! lol
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
17,197
1,231
118
Random argument man said:
That's what happens when you put an economist in an artistic world. They don't mix well.
The entertainment industry as a whole is an oxymoron. And unfortunately it's the industry side that dictates the entertainment.
 

Altorin

Jack of No Trades
May 16, 2008
6,976
0
0
The people who make Kotick rich (the mass consumer base), don't tend to read stuff like this. If everyone who bought an Activision Game was forced to read Kotick's Rhetoric, they'd probably think twice.

Let's remember though - these CEOs are all batfuckingshit insane. There isn't a Game Company CEO that isn't crazy as a loon. The Big Ones - EA, Activision and Nintendo.. they're all crazy. Standing that high on gigantic piles of money, they are so high in the sky and the air is so scarce up there, that they are crazy.

They don't live in the same world as everyone else - especially their customers.
 

oliveira8

New member
Feb 2, 2009
4,726
0
0
auronvi said:
I have misunderstood what transpired there then. Thanks for explaining. Then I guess Blizzard will remain untouched.

Kotick should be replaced though. Gamers start buying stock and then write to the company saying you want him gone! lol
But one thing should be said.

Blizzard and Activision develop their games without interfering with one another. They have their own development cycle, their own teams and their own goals.

I REALLY REALLY doubt that the idea to break SC2 into 3 games was influenced by Activision.

Here from the SC2 FAQ page about the trilogy.

Trilogy

What is the StarCraft II Trilogy?

The StarCraft II Trilogy consists of the base StarCraft II game and two subsequent expansion sets. StarCraft II is subtitled Wings of Liberty (working title) and will include a lengthy single-player campaign that focuses on the terrans and puts players in the role of Jim Raynor, one of the series' main heroes. The first expansion set, Heart of the Swarm (working title), will follow later and include a single-player campaign focusing on the zerg and Kerrigan, Queen of Blades. The second expansion set, Legacy of the Void (working title), will continue the story experience with a single-player campaign centered on the protoss.

Will we still be able to play multiplayer matches of StarCraft II with all three races?

Yes! From the beginning, StarCraft II will be a fully featured multiplayer game, and all three races will be available for competitive play.


How will the expansion sets impact multiplayer gameplay?

The expansion sets will add new content to each race for use in multiplayer matches. This could include additions such as new units, abilities, and structures, along with new maps and Battle.net updates.


If I buy StarCraft II but don't buy any of the expansion sets, will I still be able to play online?

Yes. This will work similarly to Warcraft III and the original StarCraft, which maintained separate online gaming lobbies and ladders for expansion set players and players with the base Warcraft III or StarCraft.


How long is each of the campaigns?

StarCraft II's terran campaign will consist of approximately 26 to 30 missions, and each expansion set will include a similar number of missions. This means that the complete StarCraft II Trilogy will include as many as 90 single-player missions. This allows us to create a truly epic story experience with a great variety of unique missions and gameplay types.


Why did you decide to release each race's campaign separately?

We're aiming to push the boundaries of storytelling and character development in RTS games through the unique single-player campaign design of StarCraft II. Players will be able to choose their mission path and technology upgrades for their army as they advance through the campaign. In order to make these choices meaningful while creating an epic story and well-developed characters for each faction, we needed to focus on a single race for a large number of missions.

The Trilogy also allows us to create more in-game and prerendered cinematics to tell the story in between missions. There will be more interactive sets and elements for players to explore during each campaign, along with other interesting design elements to differentiate the single-player game from multiplayer matches. For example, the technology choices within the terran single-player campaign will include special upgrades and unit types that are unique to the single-player game. These could include the ability to purchase classic units such as the wraith or firebat to add to Jim Raynor's army.


Are these three separate games? How much will all of these games cost?

The StarCraft II Trilogy will consist of the base StarCraft II game and two expansion sets. Pricing on these games hasn't been determined at this early stage; however, we've always charged an appropriate price for the content the player receives, and we will continue to release high-quality games that offer great value.


How long will it take to ship each expansion set in the Trilogy?

We're still focused on developing the base StarCraft II game, and all the content associated with the terran campaign, including the missions, cinematic cutscenes, and interactive sets. It's too early to provide an estimate on how long it will take to develop each of the expansion sets in the trilogy, but as always, we will take as much time as is needed to create the best possible gaming experience with each expansion set.

The multiplayer will still work if you bought all three games or not. If you want only MP you can just buy SC2 Part 1. There's still no pricing detail to the 3 games. Theres not enough details to shout "I SMELL ACTIVISION!!!!" with reason.

The same goes for Battle.Net 2.0. It was known for quite awhile BEFORE the merge that Blizzard wanted to update is old system. Well they doing it now.
I still rather have Blizzard join with valve and put their games into Steam. Or even Stardock. So the games could keep LAN. But they didn't. Sucks major ass and I'm still quite angry at it.
Is it Activision greedy fat fingers again? Doubt it. There was plans to revamp the old system, what better time to show it to world with SC2 and D3. Maybe B.Net 2.0 will work fine and dandy, when the online kicks up. Time will tell. But it's not Activision that made Blizzard drop LAN.

NOW! Let's take a look at a game that has made plenty of controvesy in the realms of the PC.
Modern Warfare 2.
Now MW2 shows Activision medling.(At least for the PC)

No prestige edition for PC.
Price hike for PC and UK costumers.
The exclusion of mods and dedicated servers.
A service that may or not work.

(I'm probably wrong here but I'm not sure) IW is going to launch it's own version of Battle.net the IW.Net (or whatever it's called) to handle the servers(etc), and they just revealed MAJOR cuts to what makes a PC game a PC game, 1 month away from release and haven't showcased the power of their network. They using something that hasn't been tested or introduced to a broader public. The game is going to come out and for alot of people they just got the axe, cause someone wants to make more money.
This is Activision at work. They own IW and in some form they tell them what to do.
And the price hikes is an experience to see if the Market reacts well to price hikes. What better way to test the market then use a very anticipated game. A plan that can't go wrong. I really hope that MW2 Pc version fails epicly. Maybe we can cut this mumbo jumbo of raising prices and removing mods so you can promote payed map packs.


Activision doesn't boss around Blizzard, when it comes to Blizzard development and how they want to distribute their games. BUT. If Kotick business plan is vastly superior to Blizzard, I believe nothing stops Vivendi to force Blizzard to change something.

It could happen. Then again Vivendi is French...they will surrender if Blizzard gives them the death glare.(French jokes never get old.)
 

oliveira8

New member
Feb 2, 2009
4,726
0
0
Dexter111 said:
Theres a company named Blizzard, with it's own CEO and direction. Read my first answer to auronvi.

Also wtf you mean by the bump being WoW. They weren't even sure the game was going to sell like hot cupcakes. It was a gamble they took in 2004 and it worked for them. What has that have to do with Activision?
The game makes seas of money why are they going to leave that sea?

And the logo exists but not in anything made by Blizzard. It's not in the box, it's not in the websites, it's not in the Blizzstore it's not in the battle.net.

Blizzard Entertainment exists, and has its is own publisher.

Again point Activision Blizzard in this cover:


or this one:


Activision Blizzard only exists when they need to count money. The games come from Activision and Blizzard departments. Both independent of one another.

If they were trully the same company, the name Activision Blizzard would be all over the covers of the latest games. But it's not.
 

cuddly_tomato

New member
Nov 12, 2008
3,404
0
0
can said:
Thoughts?
Just don't buy any Activision games.

Jeez. If people do buy these games then they deserve being ripped off like this - a fool and his money are soon parted.
 

Korten12

Now I want ma...!
Aug 26, 2009
10,766
0
0
tellmeimaninja said:
Ah, the Dark Lord Bobby Kotick. First he'll take our money, next our women, and finally our SOULS!
no demon's souls took our souls. at least it did for me. 0.0
 

oliveira8

New member
Feb 2, 2009
4,726
0
0
Dexter111 said:
You can assume alot, but SC2 was in production before the merge. You mention:

"It seems the decision to divide SC2 into three was discussed last BlizzCon, and got finalised sometime around new year, and now announced at BlizzCon."

It means that the idea was put on the table almost one year before Mr.Kotick and pals arrived at the scene. It was a Blizzard idea. Something that Blizzard itself wanted to do. Mr. Kotick didn't force them this on them.

And if you read the FAQ that I posted you notice that Blizzard refers the trilogy like this:

The StarCraft II Trilogy consists of the base StarCraft II game and two subsequent expansion sets. StarCraft II is subtitled Wings of Liberty (working title) and will include a lengthy single-player campaign that focuses on the terrans and puts players in the role of Jim Raynor, one of the series' main heroes. The first expansion set, Heart of the Swarm (working title), will follow later and include a single-player campaign focusing on the zerg and Kerrigan, Queen of Blades. The second expansion set, Legacy of the Void (working title), will continue the story experience with a single-player campaign centered on the protoss.

It does scream One game+2 expansions.(Like WC3+Frozen Thrones) Maybe they lying about expansion and they trully are full games. Maybe they not.

SC2, Diablo 3 rainbows, Battle.net 2.0 isn't Activision idea. At least till more concrete proof shows up. This is what I'm saying. I won't 100% DENY that everything that happened at Blizz in the last year didn't had Activision interference, but right now we can only assume and make crackpot theories.
And I won't bother with crackpot theories right now, bring more tangible stuff into table.

Even that I don't like MW2 I feel cheated to see that the company is cutting modding for the sake of making it equal on all platforms. I mean...If so why don't they just release for the 360 and PS3. Theres really no upside to the PC version and it does happen to be much more pricey than other PC FPS released this year. Even IW can lose money with PC version. It's just one big wrong policy and this is really Activision fault for trying to push around customers.

Now the current issues at Blizzard remains Blizzard doing. When I see the price tag of 60 Euros in the box of SC2/D3 I just tell them to stuck it up Kotick's ass.
 

SimuLord

Whom Gods Annoy
Aug 20, 2008
10,077
0
0
auronvi said:
I have misunderstood what transpired there then. Thanks for explaining. Then I guess Blizzard will remain untouched.

Kotick should be replaced though. Gamers start buying stock and then write to the company saying you want him gone! lol
This is the biggest catch-22 of all. If you own stock in Activision, you want one thing: for the company to make money so your stock will go up and you can make a profit on your investment. In that situation Kotick is your best friend. Capitalism is funny like that.