Activision-Blizzard is not Blizzard

[Evil Avatar]

Ex-Blizzard employee Michael Sacco has posted an editorial, Activision-Blizzard is not Blizzard (http://www.wowinsider.com/2009/04/12/activision-blizzard-is-not-blizzard/), on WoWInsider. Its pretty brutal, if your definition of brutal includes sunshine, rainbows and pictures of Care Bears.

I worked at Blizzard for close to three years. During my time there I saw a lot of big things happen: the closing of the Console Division and shelfing of Starcraft Ghost, the launch of the first (and second!) World of Warcraft expansion ... and one that some people say is the biggest event in Blizzard's history, Vivendi Games' merger with Activision.

...

You can choose to believe these answers or not, that I was fed a corporate line or that I was unaware of things going on in offices on floors higher than mine. This is your prerogative. Just remember that I no longer have a vested interest in defending Blizzard or lying to back them up.

[lockwoodx]

Page load error :(

[modeps]

Page load error :(

works for me.

[Grumsh]

Page load error :(

Websense error for me +( lousy work filter. If it wasn't for EA I swear I wouldn't get any gaming news anymore...

[derjester]

The gist of it is "Not a goddamned thing has changed at Blizzard and if anything has, it's all been by Blizzard and not because of the merger."
As a former employee I'll also agree with the sentiment. I actually have about the same amount of tenure as he did, for nearly the same time period. When the merger happened there were several memo's that went out to remind everyone in the company that nothing had changed. Blizzard was still Blizzard and Activision co-oped the name to try and improve it's brand.
This coming from someone left the company quite jaded.

[lockwoodx]

It's gotta be the site having a heart attack. I was just able to get to it, but now errors again.

[TeeCakes]

Devs explained to me that they had three choices once they realized the depth of the Terran campaign:

- Shorten and pare down each campaign, resulting in campaigns about as long as Warcraft III, and release it as one game.
- Make the campaigns as robust as possible and release the Protoss and Zerg campaigns in expansions.
- Put everything in on game exactly how they want it and have Starcraft II come out in 2014.

They said the the choice was obvious, and I agree. It's about delivering the player the best experience.

I'm sorry, but that part in particular comes off as a total parroting of some CEO's BS. I mean, really?? On what Earth would it have taken till 2014 to release everything all at once?? For some palette swaps, character art/map changes, and new voice work for separate campaigns it takes 5 extra years?

Riiiiiight.

[derjester]

I'm sorry, but that part in particular comes off as a total parroting of some CEO's BS. I mean, really?? On what Earth would it have taken till 2014 to release everything all at once?? For some palette swaps, character art/map changes, and new voice work for separate campaigns it takes 5 extra years?

Riiiiiight.

That's assuming that the game gets release this year. Also, Blizzard takes it's sweet time releasing expansion packs now. If was 2 years before Burning Crusade was released.
I'm sure he's also exaggerating for effect. I'm sure the propaganda slide didn't say "2014" as it would have been a solid deadline, which Blizzard never has.
All in all I doubt it's just a plain money grab to have 3 full campaigns. More than likely each campaign will be longer than the last, and the expansion packs will be expansion priced.

[automaton]

I failed to see how that editorial was "brutal." This looks like an employee who believed everything he heard from his management team. Being part of a management team in a large corporation, I know you should NEVER believe everything you are told. Corporate managers always message things to their subordinates in a way that will keep them calm and as productive as possible, even if it means lying. I don't see where anything he said makes me believe that he had any insight into what is actually going on with the 2 companies.

[Rommel]

There is a small (But vocal) portion of the WoW community that believes Activision is at fault for what they perceive to be flaws in Wrath of the Lich King. Wrath has made the game much more accessible and simple, at the expense of some depth and complexity. If one were amongst those that hold that this change is a decrease in quality, rather than an increase, then the timeliness of Wrath following the merger is an easy coincidence to blame. This is especially true if said player were also of the type to deify Blizzard and hold them to no fault.

For the record, I straddle the fence on my opinion of Wrath. I appreciate that I can play it less and still am mildly successful and find the quality of any particular portion of the game to exceed that of Classic or TBC. Phasing, in particular, is nice. I do, however, acknowledge that it has less content than I am used to for a Blizzard explanation which is made more noticeable by how easily said content is now accessed.

[PopoWRX]

There is a small (But vocal) portion of the WoW community that believes Activision is at fault for what they perceive to be flaws in Wrath of the Lich King. Wrath has made the game much more accessible and simple, at the expense of some depth and complexity. If one were amongst those that hold that this change is a decrease in quality, rather than an increase, then the timeliness of Wrath following the merger is an easy coincidence to blame. This is especially true if said player were also of the type to deify Blizzard and hold them to no fault.

For the record, I straddle the fence on my opinion of Wrath. I appreciate that I can play it less and still am mildly successful and find the quality of any particular portion of the game to exceed that of Classic or TBC. Phasing, in particular, is nice. I do, however, acknowledge that it has less content than I am used to for a Blizzard explanation which is made more noticeable by how easily said content is now accessed.

While I did burn through the content in Wrath, I did find it to be of much higher quality (Quests-wise) then anything before it. It did a better job of immersing you into the game and I didn't feel jipped out of money at all. The zones were all better then BC or Azeroth pretty much.

[yutt]

I failed to see how that editorial was "brutal." This looks like an employee who believed everything he heard from his management team. Being part of a management team in a large corporation, I know you should NEVER believe everything you are told. Corporate managers always message things to their subordinates in a way that will keep them calm and as productive as possible, even if it means lying. I don't see where anything he said makes me believe that he had any insight into what is actually going on with the 2 companies.
Somehow on the Internet the idea that being ignorant and cynical is a better attitude than being informed and daring to interpret events in any manner than the most negative and conspiratorial way possible.

[Ulysses]

Somehow on the Internet the idea that being ignorant and cynical is a better attitude than being informed and daring to interpret events in any manner than the most negative and conspiratorial way possible.

When you're dealing with anything involving corporations, it's best to be cynical. The author'd probably get in legal trouble if came out and dished dirt on his ex-employer, so the fact he doesn't isn't surprising. His response to their "reasoning" for Starcraft II's delivery plan is amusing though, heh.

[Azriel77]

I agree with TeeCakes, the moment I read the author say that SC2 was not broken up but were "expansions", I knew this whole article was B.S. I don't care what you call it, expansions or whatever, it is a BROKEN UP GAME to force people to pay THREE times as much for the whole game. I am not getting it until all three games(sometime in the next three or four years) are released in a battle chess pack for the price of ONE game.

[Rommel]

While I did burn through the content in Wrath, I did find it to be of much higher quality (Quests-wise) then anything before it. It did a better job of immersing you into the game and I didn't feel jipped out of money at all. The zones were all better then BC or Azeroth pretty much.

Most definitely. TBC had some hit and miss zones, and Classic had some decent to downright awful zones. Every zone in Northrend, even its weakest link Icecrown, is a joy to play in.

[derjester]

I agree with TeeCakes, the moment I read the author say that SC2 was not broken up but were "expansions", I knew this whole article was B.S. I don't care what you call it, expansions or whatever, it is a BROKEN UP GAME to force people to pay THREE times as much for the whole game. I am not getting it until all three games(sometime in the next three or four years) are released in a battle chess pack for the price of ONE game.

By that logic the majority of the Dawn of War games are incomplete. the first one only had Space Marine campaign. Same with Dawn of War 2. If anything Starcraft 2 is adapting to current trends in RTS games.

And where are you buying your expansion packs that they cost the same as the original game? Every expansion I have ever bought was always less than the original game.

[lockwoodx]

I agree with TeeCakes, the moment I read the author say that SC2 was not broken up but were "expansions", I knew this whole article was B.S. I don't care what you call it, expansions or whatever, it is a BROKEN UP GAME to force people to pay THREE times as much for the whole game. I am not getting it until all three games(sometime in the next three or four years) are released in a battle chess pack for the price of ONE game.

By that time they will be charging subscriptions for battle.net.

[Duskfire]

I agree with TeeCakes, the moment I read the author say that SC2 was not broken up but were "expansions", I knew this whole article was B.S. I don't care what you call it, expansions or whatever, it is a BROKEN UP GAME to force people to pay THREE times as much for the whole game. I am not getting it until all three games(sometime in the next three or four years) are released in a battle chess pack for the price of ONE game.

How is it any different to any other previous Blizzard game though? Diablo 2 and the original Starcraft had expansions which brought resolution to the games. Heck, the Diablo 2 expansion added a whole heap to the original game that it would have been hard not to get it. The difference here is that Blizzard is actually announcing the expansions ahead of time, as opposed to waiting till afterwards until they inevitably come out.

What if Blizz had said: "With Diablo 2, we won't actually finish the story until we release the expansion a couple of years later. It'll add a whole new area and a bunch of items and bring in a bunch of resolution." Would it have changed anything?

People rave on about how WoW is easy and designed for everyone to play. You know, I never remember Diablo 2 being that hard either. Even in Hell difficulty it wasnt all that challenging.

[Vacatakarat]

How is it any different to any other previous Blizzard game though? Diablo 2 and the original Starcraft had expansions which brought resolution to the games. Heck, the Diablo 2 expansion added a whole heap to the original game that it would have been hard not to get it. The difference here is that Blizzard is actually announcing the expansions ahead of time, as opposed to waiting till afterwards until they inevitably come out.

What if Blizz had said: "With Diablo 2, we won't actually finish the story until we release the expansion a couple of years later. It'll add a whole new area and a bunch of items and bring in a bunch of resolution." Would it have changed anything?

People rave on about how WoW is easy and designed for everyone to play. You know, I never remember Diablo 2 being that hard either. Even in Hell difficulty it wasnt all that challenging.

In my opinion, it's where the slimey DLC practices got their beginnings. D2 LoD: "Lets release a game, but make people pay later (expansion) to finish the story/game." Wouldn't that be considered a rushed product? However, this doesn't apply to every game with expansions.

[Azriel77]

That is something else that's annoying, not finishing the story, FORCING you to buy the next game because of artificial cliff hangers(Looking at you Halo 2!) and other B.S. money grubbing reasoning. You can say thats business and I can say thats B.S. because it is. They couldn't have put all three factions to play in single player campaign? and then have each factions campaign continue in expansions(so we can play all three factions without having to only do multiplayer)? Of course they could have, but they went this way because it still forces everyone here to buy each version of the game and thats the only reason. We will have to WAIT god know HOW LONG(thinking of valve hl2 horrible fiasco, episodic content will be cheaper and quicker MY ASS!!!!) before each expansion comes out. Again, no point buying the game just to have cliff hangers that lasts years in my opinion. I learned my lesson from HL2, halo2, and assassins creed. Hold off until the complete story is out, then buy everything at reduced box set price.

[Furious Wang]

- Shorten and pare down each campaign, resulting in campaigns about as long as Warcraft III, and release it as one game.

There is nothing wrong with this option at all. Warcraft 3 was an amazing game. The single player campaign tells a story and gives you basic training with each faction for preparation towards multiplayer. RTS's longevity stems from *multiplayer*. Blizzard's grand experiment at milking consumers will fail miserably. People who want to play Starcraft 2 will buy the first release for the campaign and then just play the full featured multiplayer. They will not be buying subsequent full priced titles for new single player campaigns when they can just keep playing the multiplayer from the terran copy.

That's all there is to it.

[Furious Wang]

People rave on about how WoW is easy and designed for everyone to play. You know, I never remember Diablo 2 being that hard either. Even in Hell difficulty it wasnt all that challenging.

The people raving about WoW being easy aren't comparing WoW to other blizzard titles, they're comparing WoW to other fistfuckyou mmorpgs like Everyquest.

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

The people raving about WoW being easy aren't comparing WoW to other blizzard titles, they're comparing WoW to other fistfuckyou mmorpgs like Everyquest.

Either way it still applies...

The base game may be "easy" but a lot of what people like about Blizzard titles are the competitive aspects.

[addik]

There is nothing wrong with this option at all. Warcraft 3 was an amazing game. The single player campaign tells a story and gives you basic training with each faction for preparation towards multiplayer. RTS's longevity stems from *multiplayer*. Blizzard's grand experiment at milking consumers will fail miserably. People who want to play Starcraft 2 will buy the first release for the campaign and then just play the full featured multiplayer. They will not be buying subsequent full priced titles for new single player campaigns when they can just keep playing the multiplayer from the terran copy.

That's all there is to it.

If the expansions turn out to be like Brood War, people will buy them because it will also expand the multiplayer aspect of the game.

[Duskfire]

I guess with me is that I just dont see the big deal. They are doing what every major pc game basically does nowdays, but instead just announcing it beforehand. There was obviously always going to be an expansion, and its not like Blizzard has the habit of short crappy games and dodgy pathetic expansions.

If the first Starcraft 2 is just as long and indepth as their other games, I don't see the big deal. Of course it could be horrible, but going by history I have faith.

[shpankey]

I remember working at WorldCom in the late 90's. We ended up buying MCI, who was like 600million dollars in the red. So what happens? Somehow, we implement all of MCI's management supplanting ours and then we do stupid things like in engineering scrap AutoCAD [which 90% of the world uses] in favor of MCI's use of Microstation [< 3%] and do away with the drafting department and have the engineers do their own drawings. Then, we completely implement all of MCI's proceedures. The result: most of WC's management left, and the backbone of WC's strategy of making internet backbone comes to a screeching halt. We joked that MCI bought us with our money.

Why do I say this now? I dunno... just wanted to vent I guess. I hate mergers. They rarely make sense and almost always end up bad for everyone.

[slimborama]

mobygames says this guy was in-game support... Blizzard keeps them completely separate and not even in the same building as the devs... how well-informed is his opinion?

[SacredWeasel]

Honestly, I think it's way to early to judge the whole starcraft 2 thing. If the first one is a full game and the expansions are expansion priced, what the hell does it matter? And Furious Wang, I really doubt that blizz will release the expansion with only single player content. In any case it doesn't really matter, it's blizzard and it's starcraft, it's gonna sell like crack in a rehab centrum no matter what.

[ZMoe]

The issue I have with the split is that the first Starcraft allowed people to play all 3 races without having to buy a new game and/or an expansion. If single player is 1 campaign slate that's absolutely huge, but we can still play all races in multi player, I might be able to live with the split campaigns.

[SacredWeasel]

The issue I have with the split is that the first Starcraft allowed people to play all 3 races without having to buy a new game and/or an expansion. If single player is 1 campaign slate that's absolutely huge, but we can still play all races in multi player, I might be able to live with the split campaigns.

I'm pretty sure that this has been confirmed, single player is terran only, multiplayer has all races.

[modeps]

I'm pretty sure that this has been confirmed, single player is terran only, multiplayer has all races.

Yes, this was confirmed. However this article states something contradictory to the initial reports. It was stated that the expansions would not mess with the MP content... which isn't all that normal considering what Brood War did, but here's a quote from the article:

This really, really confuses me. Why would anyone familiar with Blizzard's work be put off by them releasing expansions? Because that's exactly what the last two Starcraft II titles will be -- expansions. One will add the Zerg campaign and one will add the Protoss campaign, as well as likely multiplayer additions and enhancements to the experience

[Rhaze]

I really don't understand the fuss about the campaign. If they have enriched, well-written, and varied plotlines, I'll gladly buy each expansion. Nobody's getting 'cheated' or forced to buy anything they don't want to.