3 ms·
Making a distinction between "Activision" and "Blizzard" is a distraction. It's "Activision Blizzard". Has been legally for 15 years, and in practice for at lea
by falcolas 3y ago
Making a distinction between "Activision" and "Blizzard" is a distraction. It's "Activision Blizzard". Has been legally for 15 years, and in practice for at least 5 years now.
It doesn't matter if it's Ybarra or Kotik speaking now - they're playing by the same book on the same field.
- Macha 3y ago> It's "Activision Blizzard". Has been legally for 15 years, and in practice for at least 5 years now. So call it Activision Blizzard? The difference between Ybarra and Kotick speaking is both one of recency and personal culpability (Ybarra was hired as the cleanup lead, so a reversal on the stance that it happened would be notable in its own right), and of abuses that have gone in other non-Blizzard Activision studios (I seem to recall some controversies about Raven software also?).
- falcolas 3y agoI'm fine with that. My beef is with trying to take Blizzard out of it entirely.