10 ms·

Make no mistake: this is Bobby Kotick trying to save his job. He may well succeed. I hope his head also makes it to the chopping block. Firstly, Brack was only

by cletus 5y ago

Make no mistake: this is Bobby Kotick trying to save his job. He may well succeed. I hope his head also makes it to the chopping block. Firstly, Brack was only president for 2 years and a lot of these incidents happened prior BUT if you're in charge you're responsible. That's part of the deal that comes with that giant pay check. You don't get to say "it's not my fault". So Brack absolutely should go because he's seemingly failed to correct the toxic culture. You'll note the email talks about "Blizzard", not "Activision Blizzard". This is how you can tell Kotick is distancing himself from this. It's "Activision Blizzard" when things are going well and "Blizzard" when it's not. Kotick is I'm sure busy selling this narrative that Blizzard is an autonomous unit. It's not. It's fully Activision at this point. Activision Blizzard has squandered their most valuable properties. The only thing propping up WoW is a 15 year old version of the game that's quickly being ruined with the exact micro-transactions that ruined the game to begin with. Does anyone still care about Overwatch? Prediction: Diablo 4 is going to disappoint. This is the same company that brought you Diablo 3 after all. As for the new co-leaders, ugh... this just screams PR. One of them is a woman of course. I'm not saying she's unqualified (although both of them are relatively recent hires, interestingly). But you know given the lawsuit that this was going to happen. But the main issue is that there's two leaders. We all know countries need two presidents, armies need two commanders, etc. So what this suggests is that Ibarra had the confidence of Kotick and the board, she would now be president. So she's co-president because of the lawsuit. It may not be true but that's how people are going to interpret it. To get out this rot it can't stop at changing the executives. Blizzard honestly needs someone to come in and clean house. This goes beyond the lawsuit, which is no doubt a relatively small minority. This is about half the company probably being useless.

AutumnCurtain 5y ago
She's not even "co-president", just "co-leader". Morhaime was CEO, Brack president. Odd title deflation in play here.
- void_mint 5y ago
  When things get totally rebranded into "Blizzard, an Activision Studio" the title deflation will make sense.
- scruple 5y ago
  Jason Schreier had a good tweet about this title shuffle this morning. [0] > Titles mean a lot in the corporate world. Until 2018, Mike Morhaime was CEO. When Brack took over, he was president. Now, Oneal and Ybarra are described as "co-leaders." > A clear glimpse at who's really in charge: Bobby Kotick [0]: https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/1422536264851640320 https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/1422536264851640320
brendoelfrendo 5y ago
Re: Oneal, it's true she's new to the Blizzard executive staff, but she's a 17-year veteran of Vicarious Visions where she rose through the ranks to be Studio Head before they were moved under Blizzard earlier this year.
- polytely 5y ago
  And Vicarious Visions has been doing great work for a while, if anyone can turn it around it's probably the two outsiders, but I doubt that they will be given the tools to actually fix this. We'll see I guess, I know I won't be spending any money on Activision-Blizzard in the foreseeable future, there are more than enough games out there.
KONAir 5y ago
Diablo 1&2 were Blizzard North things who were more or less autonomous though. I feel this needs mentioning.
- klodolph 5y ago
  Diablo 2 came out over 21 years ago; if it were a person, it would be old enough to go to the bar in the US and get wasted. I don't think it needs mentioning. It is impossibly hard to keep the same culture at a game company two decades later, especially when the company grows so much. It's not like Valve is the same Valve that released Half-Life, or Bungie is the same Bungie that released Oni. None of these companies today could possibly have a similar culture to what their company culture was when those games came out. Changing company culture, it turns out, is easy. Stupidly easy. I say it's "stupidly" easy because all you need to do is hire new people, and most companies already do that. The hard thing is changing company culture in the right direction.
  - nightski 5y ago
    Even if you kept the culture perfectly intact, gaming itself has changed. Players expectations have changed dramatically. You'd need the same culture perfectly adapted to the changing gaming landscape which never happens.
    - Retric 5y ago
      Games have changed vastly more than gamers. Nobody actually wants micro transactions or paid DLC. My 8 year old nephew spends vastly more time on very old and Indy games not because their “popular” but simply because their more fun.
    - jarcane 5y ago
      Which is why there's the biannual Diablo 2 clone that flops, and the "horrible", "failed", Diablo III is on its 24th season and sold like gangbusters on consoles.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
VikingCoder 5y ago
On the face of it, you sound informed, but you made several bizarre asides, and a few glaring errors. "So what this suggests is that Ibarra [sic] had the confidence of Kotick and the board, she would now be president." Jen Oneal is the woman who is mentioned. And Mike Ybarra is not spelled that way. "One of them is a woman of course." Yes, about 50% of the planet is female, and I'd appreciate it if you took your misogyny elsewhere. "I'm not saying she's unqualified," yes, you are trying to imply that. "although both of them are relatively recent hires, interestingly", with as the article reminds you, "more than three decades of gaming industry experience between them." And yes, there are several examples of large and successful projects having more than one leader.
- thatsJustBadUX 5y ago
  I think what they're referring too when they say "One of them is a woman of course." Is pointing out an instance of the glass cliff. Which it seems to be.
  - arcanon 5y ago
    Great point. I think it depends on if the new execs view themselves as “creators” or “fixers”. Fixers can thrive in this situation.
- Daedren 5y ago
  The parent poster is implying that Activision itself believes Oneal is unqualified. That if Activision truly believed in Oneal, that she'd be president just as Brack was, rather than share the role. Of course there are various examples of multiple leaders being successful, but that implies you trust Activision and Bobby Kotick to give them the opportunity to do right, which the poster does not.
  - acomjean 5y ago
    I'll note that these posts are often written quickly, I'll agree that having two means someone thinks both aren't up to the task by themselves. When you say: "I'm not saying they're unqualified" its typically better to say nothing if you don't know (why are you telling us what you are not saying.). You're also not saying they are qualified.
vbezhenar 5y ago
At least Mike Ybarra is a hardcore WoW player. I feel a little bit better knowing that.
- cletus 5y ago
  Brack also played (plays?) WoW and he brought us LFR [1] so there's that... But hope springs eternal. [1]: https://www.escapistmagazine.com/v2/wow-producer-discusses-killing-deathwing-raid-finder-and-everything-patch-4-3/ https://www.escapistmagazine.com/v2/wow-producer-discusses-k...
  - serverholic 5y ago
    I don't see the issue with LFR. If you want to join a guild and run raids you still can. However, some of us don't feel like joining a guild and would rather just queue up every now and then.
    - JohnWhigham 5y ago
      That's missing the point though. Its introduction was a marked change in server/player culture that only accelerated over the next decade; players didn't want to put effort into something that took time, they wanted it now.
      - rightbyte 5y ago
        Yes, low effort queues remove the incentive for cooperation and community.
        serverholic 5y ago
        Fuck community. I just want to play an RPG
      - Ntrails 5y ago
        I went back and played a little while ago. Dungeon Finder was near instant, and would stick me in a dungeon I had zero context for. Magically transported there. Nobody was from my server. No conversation/chat. The encounters/dungeons themselves were utterly without context (I never had a clue where they were) and felt like clicking through to get loot with no sense of storyline. For me, that's a huge negative. I remember that the dungeons on the shattered plains (i think) specifically revolved around the shattered hand orcs or whatever. They synced with the area and the quests I'd been doing locally. It felt like a cohesive world I was involved in. I cannot argue that the new system isn't efficient. It got me playing and it got me loot. But I never learned anything about anyone. I never engaged with the story. I'm just old I guess xD
wayoutthere 5y ago
This is about Ybarra feeling he has a claim to the role and not wanting to pass him over for what would be seen as a PR reaction. This is pretty typical, and the companies I’ve seen be successful with these types of overhauls send a message loud and clear to their executives: expect to be passed over for promotions more than you’re used to. Building the right executive team in 2021 includes diversity of experience as an aspect, and you may be passed over for promotions you’re qualified for because we are building the best performing team, not locally optimizing for the best individual performers. Sure this causes turnover, but it’s usually the kind of turnover you welcome during a culture shift. Especially with the transition to remote work, empathy and diversity from senior leadership will only become more important to recruiting and retaining the best talent.
- arcanon 5y ago
  I like the bit about building the best performing team at the expense of the individual. Seems like something you could say to let down a report in a 1 on 1. Im going to use that from now on, whenever it serves my purpose. Thanks!
datavirtue 5y ago
"BUT if you're in charge you're responsible." Right next door to this post is another where the ebay CEO escaped responsibility for his employees' harassment of an e-commerce news letter publisher.
- pavon 5y ago
  The Ebay CEO was fired (or asked to resign, I don't remember), which are the same consequences that Brack has faced so far. Also, from what I can tell they are both facing civil lawsuits, not criminal, although one is being brought by the government and the other by the victims. So at this point they both appear to held accountable to the same degree, whether that is sufficient or not.
shrimp_emoji 5y ago
Make no mistake: I will not be stopped. Not by you, or the Confederates, or the Protoss, or anyone! I will rule this company or see it burnt to ashes around me.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
heartunderbread 5y ago
> But the main issue is that there's two leaders. We all know countries need two presidents, armies need two commanders, etc. I can sense the sarcasm here, but I'm curious as to why this isn't the case? I'd imagine having two leaders provides more stability and thoughtfulness especially when it comes to executive decision-making, so what's the problem?
- alex_young 5y ago
  In my experience 2 leaders is a lot like no one in charge. Doesn't work too well.
- SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
  I’ve never had any issues trying to figure out where to go to dinner with my wife, after all. As much as some personality types don’t like it, sometimes you need one person just to be in charge and make a call.
- jdright 5y ago
  People are afraid of change. Anyway, there is a bunch of studios that have two-heads, and this seems to work amazingly well.
  - macintux 5y ago
    I would wager that studios can more easily divide projects into two silos than most companies.
- wombatpm 5y ago
  I find that when making soup, adding a second chef improves the quality. I also routinely change horses while crossing rivers and streams. Usually about half way. Sarcasm aside, when there is a disagreement between coleaders, whose point of view prevails? When you know that then you know who is really in charge.
  - jdright 5y ago
    You misunderstood the idea. These aren't two leads with the same power. The decisional power is split between them and each has and bring their own responsibilities and specialities.
Hamuko 5y ago
The fact that they have two "co-leaders" and one of them is a woman makes me really wonder if they went for the two leader approach just so that they could have a woman without making a woman the sole "leader". As in, did they really want Mike Ybarra but were scared of being torn a new one by the Internet and their employees? Has Blizzard ever done this before without being in middle of a massive shitstorm?
- psyc 5y ago
  Michael will be in charge of big picture stuff, and Jim^H^H^H Jen will deal with more of the day to day.
MichaelZuo 5y ago
“ Brack was only president for 2 years and a lot of these incidents happened prior BUT if you're in charge you're responsible. ” Surely moral responsibility cannot be assigned like that? Legal, technical perhaps, but people by and large won’t assign all responsibility to the last person in a line of hot potato. Especially since the person in question didn’t actually have 100% freedom to change the organization as he wanted. There was, and still is, a board of directors above him who has to sign off on any big changes. Responsibility should go with whoever or whatever has the substantive decision making authority, and if that’s shared then …
- lostcolony 5y ago
  Moral responsibility isn't, but a company's policies, policing, and enforcement are. These were well documented things, involving numerous employees; why were they not noticed and acted upon? -That's- a corporate failing.
- x0x0 5y ago
  New ceos will get their choice of execs. While it's not 100% freedom, it's high.
- ehsankia 5y ago
  With big CEO compensation should come big responsibilities.
  - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
    It’s also why they often come with a golden parachute.
  - Chris2048 5y ago
    Feels more like well-paid scapegoat. I understand some of the dynamics are difficult, but I'm still not sure I like it.
    - smolder 5y ago
      The CEO runs the company. If the company does stupid things on their watch, it is their negligence that let it happen. Given that they get paid so much, taking responsibility for things that happen under them is an earned hazard.
scrumbledober 5y ago
> Diablo 4 is going to disappoint. This is the same company that brought you Diablo 3 after all. and, importantly, more the team that brought you Diablo 3 than the team that brought you Diablo 2...
- throwaway98797 5y ago
  Diablo 3 has improved a lot since release. Seasons. Themes. Give it another go if you haven’t in 5+ years.
  - Karunamon 5y ago
    That would require giving money to Blizzard, which there are an increasing number of good reasons to not do.
    - lmickh 5y ago
      If you think the game was a disappointment, doesn't that imply you already gave them the money? It is not a service. If you bought it 5 years ago, you don't have to pay more to play it.
      - munk-a 5y ago
        But you can avoid having some information brought to light specifically because of their abuse from turning you into a DAU. If their userbase goes up as a result of this scandal it's the market responding in a manner that encourages further behavior of this sort.
  - VRay 5y ago
    +1 to this Launch-time Diablo 3 actively felt bad to play. It had about 20 hours of fun Diablo content, and then it turned into this horrible experience that was half: inspecting the dozens of crap items in your bag looking for something someone might buy on the AH/looking for items to buy on the AH, and the other half was trying to play a "Bullet Hell" style game using click-to-move Since then, they've completely cleaned up their act. Diablo 3 today is a lot like Diablo 2 in that you can just keep enjoying the core Diablo gameplay as long as you want
arcanon 5y ago
Activision didn’t ruin Blizzard. Blizzard ruined themselves by giving up control of their destiny to another. Such things affect the way you think, to be not independent.
crescentfresh 5y ago
I'm a bit out of the loop on what has led up to this. I did a bit of searching and came up with a recent thread (within last 2 weeks) of an Activision employee (female) committing suicide after experiencing sexual harassment (involving nude photos being distributed) while on a business trip with the harassing supervisor? The thread is here: https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wow/t/employee-takes-her-own-life/1043722 https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wow/t/employee-takes-her-o...
- filoleg 5y ago
  The state of California has announced a week or two ago that it is suing Blizzard over a lot of different sexual harassment cases (including the one you've brought up) after conducting a 2-years long investigation and gathering evidence. Which prompted a (justified) mass outrage and more people coming out with more evidence and relevant situations within the company.

by cletus 5y ago

AutumnCurtain 5y ago

She's not even "co-president", just "co-leader". Morhaime was CEO, Brack president. Odd title deflation in play here.

void_mint 5y ago
When things get totally rebranded into "Blizzard, an Activision Studio" the title deflation will make sense.
scruple 5y ago
Jason Schreier had a good tweet about this title shuffle this morning. [0] > Titles mean a lot in the corporate world. Until 2018, Mike Morhaime was CEO. When Brack took over, he was president. Now, Oneal and Ybarra are described as "co-leaders." > A clear glimpse at who's really in charge: Bobby Kotick [0]: https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/1422536264851640320 https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/1422536264851640320

brendoelfrendo 5y ago

Re: Oneal, it's true she's new to the Blizzard executive staff, but she's a 17-year veteran of Vicarious Visions where she rose through the ranks to be Studio Head before they were moved under Blizzard earlier this year.

polytely 5y ago
And Vicarious Visions has been doing great work for a while, if anyone can turn it around it's probably the two outsiders, but I doubt that they will be given the tools to actually fix this. We'll see I guess, I know I won't be spending any money on Activision-Blizzard in the foreseeable future, there are more than enough games out there.

KONAir 5y ago

Diablo 1&2 were Blizzard North things who were more or less autonomous though. I feel this needs mentioning.

klodolph 5y ago
Diablo 2 came out over 21 years ago; if it were a person, it would be old enough to go to the bar in the US and get wasted. I don't think it needs mentioning. It is impossibly hard to keep the same culture at a game company two decades later, especially when the company grows so much. It's not like Valve is the same Valve that released Half-Life, or Bungie is the same Bungie that released Oni. None of these companies today could possibly have a similar culture to what their company culture was when those games came out. Changing company culture, it turns out, is easy. Stupidly easy. I say it's "stupidly" easy because all you need to do is hire new people, and most companies already do that. The hard thing is changing company culture in the right direction.
- nightski 5y ago
  Even if you kept the culture perfectly intact, gaming itself has changed. Players expectations have changed dramatically. You'd need the same culture perfectly adapted to the changing gaming landscape which never happens.
  - Retric 5y ago
    Games have changed vastly more than gamers. Nobody actually wants micro transactions or paid DLC. My 8 year old nephew spends vastly more time on very old and Indy games not because their “popular” but simply because their more fun.
  - jarcane 5y ago
    Which is why there's the biannual Diablo 2 clone that flops, and the "horrible", "failed", Diablo III is on its 24th season and sold like gangbusters on consoles.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago

VikingCoder 5y ago

On the face of it, you sound informed, but you made several bizarre asides, and a few glaring errors. "So what this suggests is that Ibarra [sic] had the confidence of Kotick and the board, she would now be president." Jen Oneal is the woman who is mentioned. And Mike Ybarra is not spelled that way. "One of them is a woman of course." Yes, about 50% of the planet is female, and I'd appreciate it if you took your misogyny elsewhere. "I'm not saying she's unqualified," yes, you are trying to imply that. "although both of them are relatively recent hires, interestingly", with as the article reminds you, "more than three decades of gaming industry experience between them." And yes, there are several examples of large and successful projects having more than one leader.

thatsJustBadUX 5y ago
I think what they're referring too when they say "One of them is a woman of course." Is pointing out an instance of the glass cliff. Which it seems to be.
- arcanon 5y ago
  Great point. I think it depends on if the new execs view themselves as “creators” or “fixers”. Fixers can thrive in this situation.
Daedren 5y ago
The parent poster is implying that Activision itself believes Oneal is unqualified. That if Activision truly believed in Oneal, that she'd be president just as Brack was, rather than share the role. Of course there are various examples of multiple leaders being successful, but that implies you trust Activision and Bobby Kotick to give them the opportunity to do right, which the poster does not.
- acomjean 5y ago
  I'll note that these posts are often written quickly, I'll agree that having two means someone thinks both aren't up to the task by themselves. When you say: "I'm not saying they're unqualified" its typically better to say nothing if you don't know (why are you telling us what you are not saying.). You're also not saying they are qualified.

vbezhenar 5y ago

At least Mike Ybarra is a hardcore WoW player. I feel a little bit better knowing that.

cletus 5y ago
Brack also played (plays?) WoW and he brought us LFR [1] so there's that... But hope springs eternal. [1]: https://www.escapistmagazine.com/v2/wow-producer-discusses-killing-deathwing-raid-finder-and-everything-patch-4-3/ https://www.escapistmagazine.com/v2/wow-producer-discusses-k...
- serverholic 5y ago
  I don't see the issue with LFR. If you want to join a guild and run raids you still can. However, some of us don't feel like joining a guild and would rather just queue up every now and then.
  - JohnWhigham 5y ago
    That's missing the point though. Its introduction was a marked change in server/player culture that only accelerated over the next decade; players didn't want to put effort into something that took time, they wanted it now.
    - rightbyte 5y ago
      Yes, low effort queues remove the incentive for cooperation and community.
      - serverholic 5y ago
        Fuck community. I just want to play an RPG
    - Ntrails 5y ago
      I went back and played a little while ago. Dungeon Finder was near instant, and would stick me in a dungeon I had zero context for. Magically transported there. Nobody was from my server. No conversation/chat. The encounters/dungeons themselves were utterly without context (I never had a clue where they were) and felt like clicking through to get loot with no sense of storyline. For me, that's a huge negative. I remember that the dungeons on the shattered plains (i think) specifically revolved around the shattered hand orcs or whatever. They synced with the area and the quests I'd been doing locally. It felt like a cohesive world I was involved in. I cannot argue that the new system isn't efficient. It got me playing and it got me loot. But I never learned anything about anyone. I never engaged with the story. I'm just old I guess xD

wayoutthere 5y ago

This is about Ybarra feeling he has a claim to the role and not wanting to pass him over for what would be seen as a PR reaction. This is pretty typical, and the companies I’ve seen be successful with these types of overhauls send a message loud and clear to their executives: expect to be passed over for promotions more than you’re used to. Building the right executive team in 2021 includes diversity of experience as an aspect, and you may be passed over for promotions you’re qualified for because we are building the best performing team, not locally optimizing for the best individual performers. Sure this causes turnover, but it’s usually the kind of turnover you welcome during a culture shift. Especially with the transition to remote work, empathy and diversity from senior leadership will only become more important to recruiting and retaining the best talent.

arcanon 5y ago
I like the bit about building the best performing team at the expense of the individual. Seems like something you could say to let down a report in a 1 on 1. Im going to use that from now on, whenever it serves my purpose. Thanks!

datavirtue 5y ago

"BUT if you're in charge you're responsible." Right next door to this post is another where the ebay CEO escaped responsibility for his employees' harassment of an e-commerce news letter publisher.

pavon 5y ago
The Ebay CEO was fired (or asked to resign, I don't remember), which are the same consequences that Brack has faced so far. Also, from what I can tell they are both facing civil lawsuits, not criminal, although one is being brought by the government and the other by the victims. So at this point they both appear to held accountable to the same degree, whether that is sufficient or not.

shrimp_emoji 5y ago

Make no mistake: I will not be stopped. Not by you, or the Confederates, or the Protoss, or anyone! I will rule this company or see it burnt to ashes around me.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

heartunderbread 5y ago

> But the main issue is that there's two leaders. We all know countries need two presidents, armies need two commanders, etc. I can sense the sarcasm here, but I'm curious as to why this isn't the case? I'd imagine having two leaders provides more stability and thoughtfulness especially when it comes to executive decision-making, so what's the problem?

alex_young 5y ago
In my experience 2 leaders is a lot like no one in charge. Doesn't work too well.
SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
I’ve never had any issues trying to figure out where to go to dinner with my wife, after all. As much as some personality types don’t like it, sometimes you need one person just to be in charge and make a call.
jdright 5y ago
People are afraid of change. Anyway, there is a bunch of studios that have two-heads, and this seems to work amazingly well.
- macintux 5y ago
  I would wager that studios can more easily divide projects into two silos than most companies.
wombatpm 5y ago
I find that when making soup, adding a second chef improves the quality. I also routinely change horses while crossing rivers and streams. Usually about half way. Sarcasm aside, when there is a disagreement between coleaders, whose point of view prevails? When you know that then you know who is really in charge.
- jdright 5y ago
  You misunderstood the idea. These aren't two leads with the same power. The decisional power is split between them and each has and bring their own responsibilities and specialities.

Hamuko 5y ago

The fact that they have two "co-leaders" and one of them is a woman makes me really wonder if they went for the two leader approach just so that they could have a woman without making a woman the sole "leader". As in, did they really want Mike Ybarra but were scared of being torn a new one by the Internet and their employees? Has Blizzard ever done this before without being in middle of a massive shitstorm?

psyc 5y ago
Michael will be in charge of big picture stuff, and Jim^H^H^H Jen will deal with more of the day to day.

MichaelZuo 5y ago

“ Brack was only president for 2 years and a lot of these incidents happened prior BUT if you're in charge you're responsible. ” Surely moral responsibility cannot be assigned like that? Legal, technical perhaps, but people by and large won’t assign all responsibility to the last person in a line of hot potato. Especially since the person in question didn’t actually have 100% freedom to change the organization as he wanted. There was, and still is, a board of directors above him who has to sign off on any big changes. Responsibility should go with whoever or whatever has the substantive decision making authority, and if that’s shared then …

lostcolony 5y ago
Moral responsibility isn't, but a company's policies, policing, and enforcement are. These were well documented things, involving numerous employees; why were they not noticed and acted upon? -That's- a corporate failing.
x0x0 5y ago
New ceos will get their choice of execs. While it's not 100% freedom, it's high.
ehsankia 5y ago
With big CEO compensation should come big responsibilities.
- SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
  It’s also why they often come with a golden parachute.
- Chris2048 5y ago
  Feels more like well-paid scapegoat. I understand some of the dynamics are difficult, but I'm still not sure I like it.
  - smolder 5y ago
    The CEO runs the company. If the company does stupid things on their watch, it is their negligence that let it happen. Given that they get paid so much, taking responsibility for things that happen under them is an earned hazard.

scrumbledober 5y ago

> Diablo 4 is going to disappoint. This is the same company that brought you Diablo 3 after all. and, importantly, more the team that brought you Diablo 3 than the team that brought you Diablo 2...

throwaway98797 5y ago
Diablo 3 has improved a lot since release. Seasons. Themes. Give it another go if you haven’t in 5+ years.
- Karunamon 5y ago
  That would require giving money to Blizzard, which there are an increasing number of good reasons to not do.
  - lmickh 5y ago
    If you think the game was a disappointment, doesn't that imply you already gave them the money? It is not a service. If you bought it 5 years ago, you don't have to pay more to play it.
    - munk-a 5y ago
      But you can avoid having some information brought to light specifically because of their abuse from turning you into a DAU. If their userbase goes up as a result of this scandal it's the market responding in a manner that encourages further behavior of this sort.
- VRay 5y ago
  +1 to this Launch-time Diablo 3 actively felt bad to play. It had about 20 hours of fun Diablo content, and then it turned into this horrible experience that was half: inspecting the dozens of crap items in your bag looking for something someone might buy on the AH/looking for items to buy on the AH, and the other half was trying to play a "Bullet Hell" style game using click-to-move Since then, they've completely cleaned up their act. Diablo 3 today is a lot like Diablo 2 in that you can just keep enjoying the core Diablo gameplay as long as you want

arcanon 5y ago

Activision didn’t ruin Blizzard. Blizzard ruined themselves by giving up control of their destiny to another. Such things affect the way you think, to be not independent.

crescentfresh 5y ago

I'm a bit out of the loop on what has led up to this. I did a bit of searching and came up with a recent thread (within last 2 weeks) of an Activision employee (female) committing suicide after experiencing sexual harassment (involving nude photos being distributed) while on a business trip with the harassing supervisor? The thread is here: https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wow/t/employee-takes-her-own-life/1043722 https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/wow/t/employee-takes-her-o...

filoleg 5y ago
The state of California has announced a week or two ago that it is suing Blizzard over a lot of different sexual harassment cases (including the one you've brought up) after conducting a 2-years long investigation and gathering evidence. Which prompted a (justified) mass outrage and more people coming out with more evidence and relevant situations within the company.