SHP Forums

Some may already be aware of this, but in spite of record revenues Activision will be laying off nearly 800 employees while its CEO compensation is $30 million and gave a $15 million dollar bonus to the CFO just for changing his job title.

Activision Blizzard Lays Off Hundreds Of Employees

Activision Blizzard reports historic financial gains amid major layoffs

And the blowback:

Game Workers Unite urges Activision Blizzard to fire Its CEO

Jimquisition take:

Just watched Boogie2988's videos on this today. Both this company and EA need to fold already.

Unfortunately, I must agree. I can't remember the last successful original idea from either Activision or EA.

EA seems to basically live on the success (or failure!) or their sports games and their Sims games. As for Activision ... what have they launched recently? Guitar Hero (finished in 2015). Marvel: Ultimate Alliance (finished in 2013). The Destiny series (finished in 2018). They merged with Blizzard 11 years ago and what did that bring us? Even more World of Warcraft (please).

Activision needs to change their ethics and fast, or they'll be the next big company to feel the pinch from consumers - hopefully ...

And these are the same fat cats that send cease and desist orders when Al Lowe's source code turns up, or else block patches containing the music for a rarer than rare FM-Towns port that they have no intention of rereleasing themselves. I say let 'em fold!

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:46 am As for Activision ... what have they launched recently? Marvel: Ultimate Alliance (finished in 2013).

Well, let's be clear, Marvel: Ultimate Alliance is not finished (but Activision didn't make this one).

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:46 am Even more World of Warcraft (please).

You do realize that World of Warcraft is Blizzard's cash-cow and not Activision? Yes, Activision has purchased them or whatever, but rest assured, if it was just Blizzard as itself, WoW is still their cash cow.

As for me, dislike Activision all you want, I say - don't buy their games... ... but wishing they'd fold?
Not cool for me, because there are people who make their living there, pay for bills, put food on the table for themselves, their husband/wife, and kids.

Yes, that is true. I don't wish any ill-will on the hardworking employees who, in all likelihood, are criminally underappreciated. But it's hard to root for corporate greed of such magnitude. Spare the employees, but do something about the company culture. Maybe a shakeup in CEOs would turn things around, but their company's reputations would need a lot of damage control.

Anyone working on WOW for years will have little trouble finding a new job. Developers are usually very charitable to people who've been laid off. They keep posting well wishes on Twitter and that they have positions open in response.

ActiVision needs to die. So does EA. I don't want to see employees suffer, but they'll land on their feet. People always do. But these two companies have been nothing but a leach in the industry taking advantage of developers and consumers alike just to boost their profits. Milking them with microtransactions (that aren't so micro anymore) and working their employees and developers to death just to be laid off anyway? EA shuts down every promising studio it absorbs if it can't align with their particular brand of vision, ActiVision isn't much better. These are the two most hated game publishers in the world.

I'm not sorry. They need to go.

MusicallyInspired wrote: ↑Sat Feb 16, 2019 4:35 pm Anyone working on WOW for years will have little trouble finding a new job. Developers are usually very charitable to people who've been laid off. They keep posting well wishes on Twitter and that they have positions open in response.

ActiVision needs to die. So does EA. I don't want to see employees suffer, but they'll land on their feet. People always do.

But these two companies have been nothing but a leach in the industry taking advantage of developers and consumers alike just to boost their profits. Milking them with microtransactions (that aren't so micro anymore) and working their employees and developers to death just to be laid off anyway? EA shuts down every promising studio it absorbs if it can't align with their particular brand of vision, ActiVision isn't much better. These are the two most hated game publishers in the world.

I'm not sorry. They need to go.

That's cool for developers. But a company going under has more than just one group of people. There's the customer service, the techs that support the developers machines, there's administrative assistants, there's the networking team, the list goes on and on and on.

I am sensitive to this, because my work has gone through about three major lay offs in the last two years, impacting hundreds and hundreds of lives. Not just engineers who might quickly get picked up for having worked at the company that I do, but I know people in the Service Desk, the Networking Team, the Data Back Up teams, all of whom were impacted - just by lay offs, not an entire company shutting down - and for some it's been well over 8 months that they've been without a job, trying to survive with kids in California, with mortgage, insurance for themselves and their kids, the list goes on.

As for people landing on their feet and that they "always do." I am going to strongly disagree there as well. A good friend of mine lost her job (not at my company, in this case). Do you know where she is right now? She's homeless. Living on the streets with her boyfriend. If everyone always "landed on their feet" I don't think we'd have the homeless "problem" that we have.

You, of course, entitled to believe that it's best that the company shuts down because they're evil. But to me, it's not like they're an evil drug corporation where their products are harming anyone.

So, because of that, I like to think of the broader picture of how it's going to impact the lives of those who work there.

It's sad to see what's become of companies like Activision and Electronic Arts. They're nothing like they were when they first started, but that's the risk you face when you become a publicly-traded company. Once you have shareholders (whose appeasement can make or break a CEO's position) the company's focus shifts from quality products to making money for those shareholders.

Tawmis wrote: ↑Sat Feb 16, 2019 11:54 am

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:46 am Even more World of Warcraft (please).

You do realize that World of Warcraft is Blizzard's cash-cow and not Activision? Yes, Activision has purchased them or whatever, but rest assured, if it was just Blizzard as itself, WoW is still their cash cow.

To be fair, I did point out that the only result of Activision's merger with Blizzard - 11 years ago - was more WoW. I'm well aware that WoW is Blizzard's cash-cow, not Activision's. I just wish that the merger resulted in other (and more original) products, that's all.

As for wishing that companies shut down ... I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Tawmis here. When game companies shut down, it is seldom the big bosses - the CEO, the CFO, the Board of Directors etc. - that starve. The people that suffer are the investors and the workers - they are the ones who must tighten their belts, the ones who must make do with an even smaller portion of the pie, while the CEOs rake in millions each year and then grab a golden parachute worth millions more when they finally elect to retire.

What would really be helpful is not shutting down Activision or EA, but this:

1. Take Activision and EA off the share-market.
2. This would force Kotick and Wilson to stop focusing on their shareholders, and turn their focus to their workers, instead.
3. Ta-da.

Of course, human greed being what it is, this would not be a fool-proof solution or even a permanent one. But at least it would help in the short-term.

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Sat Feb 16, 2019 8:12 pm

Tawmis wrote: ↑Sat Feb 16, 2019 11:54 am

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:46 am Even more World of Warcraft (please).

You do realize that World of Warcraft is Blizzard's cash-cow and not Activision? Yes, Activision has purchased them or whatever, but rest assured, if it was just Blizzard as itself, WoW is still their cash cow.

To be fair, I did point out that the only result of Activision's merger with Blizzard - 11 years ago - was more WoW. I'm well aware that WoW is Blizzard's cash-cow, not Activision's. I just wish that the merger resulted in other (and more original) products, that's all.

Well, it's beneficial if you play World of Warcraft. The constant expansions make it, for those players who raid and look for end game content (neither of which is me ), the level cap rises, new spells, new skills, new monsters, new areas, new quests.

Otherwise people would hit end game content and wonder why they're still paying a monthly fee if there's nothing new to discover.

Hmm. Whereas I, in my naivete, don't play WoW and have never played WoW. The last Warcraft I touched was Warcraft 3, which was many years ago now.

I also haven't played any EA games since the first Sims game. (And that's another story in itself - it was fun for a while, but then one night, I looked at my little Sim playing his computer game ... on my computer game ... and thought: Aaaaaaaaaahhhh!!! What the F*** am I doing?!??!? The next day I uninstalled the bugger, threw it away, and never touched the Sims again).

The main reason I never played WoW is because I absolutely hate subscription games. Hate 'em with a passion. Why in the name of sanity should I pay a company even more money to play something that I already paid for? F*** that.

In what other industry does that happen? When I buy a book, nobody forces me to pay more money in order to turn the page. When I buy a DVD, nobody forces me to pay more money in order to watch the next scene. Why should game companies get away with this? It's greed like this that made Activision, Blizzard and EA the monsters that they are today. (I would also add Bethesda to that list for ESO, but at least they're using that money to develop TES6 - even if I won't be able to play that until at least 2020 at the very earliest, or even arrive in 2021 or later).

You raise very valid and sobering points that make me feel quite silly. I retract my statements.

Rath Darkblade wrote: ↑Sat Feb 16, 2019 8:53 pm The main reason I never played WoW is because I absolutely hate subscription games. Hate 'em with a passion. Why in the name of sanity should I pay a company even more money to play something that I already paid for? F*** that.
In what other industry does that happen? When I buy a book, nobody forces me to pay more money in order to turn the page. When I buy a DVD, nobody forces me to pay more money in order to watch the next scene. Why should game companies get away with this? It's greed like this that made Activision, Blizzard and EA the monsters that they are today. (I would also add Bethesda to that list for ESO, but at least they're using that money to develop TES6 - even if I won't be able to play that until at least 2020 at the very earliest, or even arrive in 2021 or later).

I won't argue that subscription games are a pain in the arse... But...
When you pay for World of Warcraft, yes, you are paying for the game. But the monthly fees go towards server maintenance and upkeep and what not. Programming and upkeeping an MMO on a server, on the scale of World of Warcraft isn't cheap. It's either a monthly charge, or turning the game into Micro-Transactions... and based off this thread, I know how you feel about that.

However, to counter your point of "I bought the game, why a monthly?"

World of Warcraft now - like just about every MMO - no longer requires a game purchase. Just a subscription. And a subscription gets you all the way to just before the latest expansion. So if expansions were released with new races, for example. When you subscribe, you automatically get those. Like I didn't (when I played originally) get the Panda expansion (that gave you a Panda race to play). But when I recently subscribed to play with some work friends, they were all unlocked (including the Goblins and Worgen [Werewolf] playable races, all stuff I did not purchase from the expansions back in the day).

All of that said, I do, however agree with you. I hate Monthly fees. Lord of the Rings is "free to play" where you can "micro-transaction" to get better stuff or unlock certain things; but it's done nothing to stop my enjoyment. I've never bought any in-game purchase in LotRo, and I still have a fun time playing that game - same thing with the Star Wars MMO.

Micro-transactions have become the new "thing" in gaming, probably due to mobile gaming.

Mobile gamers are cheap to the point of absurdity. They'll pay hundreds of dollars for a smartphone with an extensive plan, but then balk at paying anything over a dollar for games or programs. That's where micro-transactions come in, because people will play a "free" game with ads and paying for more coins or energy or new levels (and sometimes end up paying a lot over a period of time for their "free" game), but if they saw a higher "all-in-one" price, they'd pass it up.

I've seen this attitude on Steam, as well, when a developer ports a mobile game to the PC. When this happens, the developer usually improves the game with better visuals, controls, and includes all optional purchases from the mobile version. Also, on a PC you have a nice, big monitor to use as opposed to a smartphone's comparatively small screen where text is difficult to read.

Improving the game and porting it to the PC market also means the price to purchase the game is a lot more. Whenever this happens you'll see multiple people post complaining, "This game is a scam! It's free on the Google Play store!" What these morons don't understand is that while the game may be "free" on mobile platforms, it's a bare bones version and you need to pay for everything else. The PC version, however, includes everything up front.

But this just proves my point: people only look at the price and ignore what they GET for that price. I'd rather pay once up front and never have to deal with micro-transactions or ads, but apparently I'm in the minority there.