https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/activision-blizzard-sued-by-california-over-frat-boy-culture
QuoteActivision Blizzard Sued Over 'Frat Boy' Culture, Harassment
Video game giant Activision Blizzard Inc., maker of games including World of Warcraft and Diablo, fosters a "frat boy" culture in which female employees are subjected to constant sexual harassment, unequal pay, and retaliation, according to a lawsuit filed by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.
A two-year investigation by the state agency found that the company discriminated against female employees in terms and conditions of employment, including compensation, assignment, promotion, and termination. Company leadership consistently failed to take steps to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, the agency said.
According to the complaint, filed Tuesday in the Los Angeles Superior Court, female employees make up around 20% of the Activision workforce, and are subjected to a "pervasive frat boy workplace culture," including "cube crawls," in which male employees "drink copious amounts of alcohol as they crawl their way through various cubicles in the office and often engage in inappropriate behavior toward female employees."
The agency alleges male employees play video games during the workday while delegating responsibilities to female employees, engage in sexual banter, and joke openly about rape, among other things.
Female employees allege being held back from promotions because of the possibility they might become pregnant, being criticized for leaving to pick their children up from daycare, and being kicked out of lactation rooms so male colleagues could use the room for meetings, the complaint says.
Female employees working for the World of Warcraft team noted that male employees and supervisors would hit on them, make derogatory comments about rape, and otherwise engage in demeaning behavior, the agency alleges.
The suit also points to a female Activision employee who took her own life while on a company trip with her male supervisor. The employee had been subjected to intense sexual harassment prior to her death, including having nude photos passed around at a company holiday party, the complaint says.
The agency seeks an injunction forcing compliance with workplace protections, as well as unpaid wages, pay adjustments, back pay, and lost wages and benefits for female employees.
"We value diversity and strive to foster a workplace that offers inclusivity for everyone. There is no place in our company or industry, or any industry, for sexual misconduct or harassment of any kind," a spokesperson for Activision Blizzard said in a statement. "We take every allegation seriously and investigate all claims. In cases related to misconduct, action was taken to address the issue."
"The DFEH includes distorted, and in many cases false, descriptions of Blizzard's past. We have been extremely cooperative with the DFEH throughout their investigation, including providing them with extensive data and ample documentation, but they refused to inform us what issues they perceived," the statement continued.
"The picture the DFEH paints is not the Blizzard workplace of today," the company said.
Causes of Action: Employment discrimination because of sex; retaliation; failure to prevent discrimination and harassment; unequal pay.
Relief: Compensatory damages; punitive damages; unpaid wages; injunctive relief; declaratory relief; equitable relief; pre-judgment interest; attorneys' fees; costs.
Attorneys: Internal counsel represents the Department of Fair Employment and Housing.
The case is Calif. Dep't of Fair Emp. & Housing v. Activision Blizzard Inc., Cal. Super. Ct., No. 21stcv26571, 7/20/21.
The court filing: https://aboutblaw.com/YJw
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E63CsCxWUAIKT9s?format=png&name=small)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E63CsptXEAImUOW?format=png&name=small)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E63MsZSXEAEaAMe?format=png&name=small)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E64UgRBXMAAUHXG?format=jpg&name=small)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E63PqAFXEAoWk7B?format=jpg&name=small)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E63PcOpXMAU2yFJ?format=png&name=small)
"unaccountable state bureaucrats"
SoCiaLisM!!!11 :rolleyes:
Question to the law people here - would the DFEH file such a high profile case without being reasonably sure they have a leg to stand on? :unsure:
Quote"The picture the DFEH paints is not the Blizzard workplace of today," the company said.
Even the company doesn't deny that they've been naughty.
If the allegations are essentially correct, then I think that the company and responsible individuals ought to be punished in way that hurts and might make others of their kind reconsider their stance on basic decency.
Edit: now I read the Blizzard statement at the bottom. Wow. They appear to be unhinged. And even if you ignore the insane second paragraph, it's interesting that in the first paragraph they talk about measures they've taken to change the culture, but they tellingly don't say that they've actually changed the culture. Measures mean nothing. Results do.
Tbf, I don't know in which order the paragraphs were published.
Quote from: Syt on July 22, 2021, 02:26:03 AM
Question to the law people here - would the DFEH file such a high profile case without being reasonably sure they have a leg to stand on? :unsure:
On the one hand, it's not encouraging that the DFEH refers to "Bill Crosby". Are they referring to a comedian, a former collaborator with Stephen Stills and Graham Nash, or some chimera of the two?
On the other hand, Brain is right about the bizarre company response, which combines an admission of past guilt with an unrepentant and hysterical attack on the agency. Reading that makes the DFEH allegations seem plausible.
It could come down to which party proves the most incompetent; at the moment, Blizzard appears to have taken a firm lead but I wouldn't count DFEH out just yet.
I don't understand why this is a matter for the court. Doesn't the state have an administrative body to rule on such things?
This is something that would go before our Human Rights Tribunal or Worksafe (the administrative body which regulates safe workplaces, including being harassment free). Those decisions would then be subject to judicial review by the court if there was some error in the initial decision or direction. The court would not be the initial decision maker.
Seems a bit cumbersome to require a court process before meaning remedies can be applied when there is admitted bad behaviour.
An email by Fran Townsend, an Activision Blizzard compliance executive, to the staff. She joined in March this year.
From 2004-2007 she was Homeland Security Advisor for GWB, and she was on the shortlist to replace Comey at the FBI. :unsure:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E6_yQTsXoAAUIOG?format=png&name=medium)
The email was apparently not well received.
https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/activision-blizzard-employees-denounce-corporate-statements-we-are-here-angry-and-not-so-easily-silenced/
QuoteActivision Blizzard employees denounce corporate statements: 'We are here, angry, and not so easily silenced'
Over 20 current Activision Blizzard employees, including World of Warcraft lead game designer Jeremy Feasel, have publicly criticized the company's response to the sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuit filed against it earlier this week. Some WoW developers also stopped work today "in solidarity with the women that came forward," Feasel said.
The suit, filed by a California government agency, alleges that women at the company have faced "constant sexual harassment" and discrimination, especially women of color. The response from Activision Blizzard executives has been inconsistent. In its first statement to press, the company called the suit "distorted, and in many cases false" and characterized the agency behind it as a group of "unaccountable bureaucrats." In an internal email, chief compliance officer Fran Townsend also said that the suit "presented a distorted and untrue picture" of Activision Blizzard, and criticized it for "including factually incorrect, old, and out of context stories."
Internal emails from Blizzard president J Allen Brack and Activision president Rob Kostich struck a different tone, calling the behavior alleged in the lawsuit "unacceptable" and "disturbing," although neither affirmed that such behavior has occurred at the company.
On social media, dozens of former employees expressed support for the stories told in the lawsuit and, in some cases, corroborated details. Now over 20 current Activision Blizzard employees have expressed public disapproval of Activision Blizzard's response to the suit, with dozens more showing support by retweeting their coworker's statements.
"Many of us will not be working today in solidarity with the women that came forward," wrote lead game designer Jeremy Feasel. "The statements made by [Activision Blizzard] do not represent us. We believe women, and we will continue to strive to do better and hold others accountable. Actions speak louder than words."
The World of Warcraft team has been "going through a mix of outrage and sorrow and hurt," said narrative designer Steve Danuser, who went on to say that he's interested in fixing the company and industry, not "corporate bullshit statements."
Many more employees expressed similar feelings:
"I'm unhappy with the corporate response up to this point," said game designer Brian Holinka. "I don't feel it represents me or what I believe in. Many of us have said this internally. It feels worth saying publicly."
"These past few days have made me furious at the COMPANY I work for, but so proud of the PEOPLE I work with," tweeted a user named Burk, who works at Blizzard as an associate producer. "Everyone is rallying together, listening, speaking out against the atrocious responses, and demanding action. We are here, angry, and not so easily silenced."
"I stand with the [Activision Blizzard] victims & believe their stories," tweeted Blizzard UX researcher Nikki Crenshaw. "To claim that these stories are 'factually incorrect' or 'untrue' is a slap in the face to current & former employees, & does not represent my core values."
"Really hope that Blizzard puts out a statement on this situation that I actually agree with and can support, and not more legal defense posturing," wrote Kyle Hartline, a server and live ops producer on World of Warcraft. "Because the stuff said so far is unacceptable and doesn't represent me. And I know I'm not alone in feeling that way here."
"I've heard horror stories all of which I know are true and shouldn't be dismissed," tweeted Elsbeth Larkin, a tools software engineer for World of Warcraft. "The fact that [Activision Blizzard] dismissed it not once but twice is appalling."
In addition to personal statements, many developers are also tweeting statements that read: "This tweet is my own and does not represent the views of my company. I do not support any attempt by AB to diminish the very real damage done to victims of harassment at Blizzard. We absolutely must hear and support the women at our company, both current and past."
At the time of writing, Activision Blizzard has not responded publicly to these expressions of distrust and frustration from employees. We've asked for comment from the company, and will have more as the story develops throughout the next week and beyond.
A list of what they have done, but nothing about what they have achieved. What a shocker. Also a shocker that firing people for unacceptable behavior is not on the list of things they've done.
Having defended the use of torture by the US, Fran Townsend is well-placed to defending the undefendable, I guess.
It is good that employees are standing with their coworkers rather than victim blaming or simply ignoring the problem.
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 24, 2021, 11:54:43 AM
Having defended the use of torture by the US, Fran Townsend is well-placed to defending the undefendable, I guess.
I don't want to go full anti-woke - but the combination of the security state and corporate "diversity and inclusion" efforts is gross and also a very 21st century thing.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2021, 04:39:50 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on July 24, 2021, 11:54:43 AM
Having defended the use of torture by the US, Fran Townsend is well-placed to defending the undefendable, I guess.
I don't want to go full anti-woke - but the combination of the security state and corporate "diversity and inclusion" efforts is gross and also a very 21st century thing.
I can't think of another example of a high-level intel person going to work for a gaming company in HR/Legal, but am willing to see evidence that shows that this is a thing.
It's not that it's common or to do with personnel, more distinctively 21st century - another example would be things like the CIA pride recruitment videos.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 24, 2021, 06:13:49 PM
It's not that it's common or to do with personnel, more distinctively 21st century - another example would be things like the CIA pride recruitment videos.
I don't know what "distinctively 21st century" even means in this context. Arbitrary divisions of time only make sense for accounting purposes; they have no prescriptive effects. Not many CIA recruitment videos in the 20th Century because there was no way to distribute them; YouTube was not founded until 2005, well into the 21st century.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2021, 11:02:11 AM
I don't understand why this is a matter for the court. Doesn't the state have an administrative body to rule on such things?
If America was great again, these people would simply meet at dawn and duel it out.
Unfortunately, nowadays, it's a job for the courts. Nothing is sacred anymore. :(
Seriously, I don't think I've ever heard of this concept (the Worksafe or Administrative tribunal for work related stuff) in the US. I'm curious...
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2021, 11:02:11 AM
I don't understand why this is a matter for the court. Doesn't the state have an administrative body to rule on such things?
This is something that would go before our Human Rights Tribunal or Worksafe (the administrative body which regulates safe workplaces, including being harassment free). Those decisions would then be subject to judicial review by the court if there was some error in the initial decision or direction. The court would not be the initial decision maker.
Seems a bit cumbersome to require a court process before meaning remedies can be applied when there is admitted bad behaviour.
Don't know how it works in California; every state does things their own way.
At the federal level, the EEOC does handle some complaints administratively, but most contested matters are litigated in the courts. It is common for private disputes to be settled at the agency level, in which case the courts don't get involved.
As a practical matter, no private party that contests the charges, as Blizzard is doing here, would accept the kind of remedies being sought in this case without invoking their right to judicial review.
https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/more-than-1500-activision-blizzard-employees-condemn-company-leadership-call-for-compassion-for-victims/
QuoteMore than 1,500 Activision Blizzard employees condemn company leadership, call for 'compassion for victims'
More than 1,500 current and former employees of Activision Blizzard have signed a letter condemning the company's response to a lawsuit alleging discrimination, sexual harassment, and "frat boy" culture at the company. "The statements from Activision Blizzard, Inc. and their legal counsel ... are abhorrent and insulting to all that we believe our company should stand for," the employee statement reads.
The letter, which according to Kotaku was sent to managers today, was prompted by Activision Blizzard's response to the lawsuit, and in particular an internal memo issued by chief compliance officer Frances Townsend that dismissed the suit. Townsend claimed the lawsuit presented "a distorted and untrue picture of [Activision Blizzard], including factually incorrect, old, and out of context stories—some from more than a decade ago."
"We believe these statements have damaged our ongoing quest for equality inside and outside of our industry," the employee letter says. "Categorizing the claims that have been made as 'distorted, and in many cases false' creates a company atmosphere that disbelieves victims. It also casts doubt on our organizations' ability to hold abusers accountable for their actions and foster a safe environment for victims to come forward in the future. These statements make it clear that our leadership is not putting our values first."
"Our company executives have claimed that actions will be taken to protect us, but in the face of legal action—and the troubling official responses that followed—we no longer trust that our leaders will place employee safety above their own interests. To claim this is a 'truly meritless and irresponsible lawsuit,' while seeing so many current and former employees speak out about their own experiences regarding harassment and abuse, is simply unacceptable."
The letter calls for statements from Activision Blizzard executives that "recognize the seriousness of these allegations," and for Townsend to step down from her position as executive sponsor of the ABK [Activision Blizzard King] Employee Women's Network. The employees also want company leadership to work with them on new efforts to ensure that employees, and also members of the community, "have a safe place to speak out" about misconduct.
The number of signatories is continuing to grow and represents a significant portion of Activision Blizzard, which reported approximately 9,500 employees at the end of 2020. Employees have also been pushing back against the company's response on social media, and former Blizzard leaders including Mike Morhaime and Chris Metzen have apologized for failing to protect its employees.
I've seen criticism of Metzen's and Morhaime's apologies, questioning if they were as ignorant of the stuff as they claim to be.
Jason Schreier over on Bloomberg had another article chronicling the bad launch of the Warcraft 3 remake/remaster, and it basically comes down to: management didn't want to put the necessary resources into it and then cut its losses after release.
He has a more general overview in his newsletter:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2021-07-23/activision-blizzard-s-games-culture-crisis-runs-deep
QuoteBlizzard is one of the biggest names in video games, with a string of hits that made it the envy of the industry. That success has been the result of a unique company culture at the California-based game developer behind Diablo, Warcraft and StarCraft that prioritized great games above all else. But as we learned this week, that culture had a dark side.
On Tuesday, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing filed a lawsuit against Blizzard's parent company, Activision Blizzard Inc., alleging discrimination against women through intense sexual harassment, unfair pay and retaliation. A spokesperson for Activision Blizzard described many of the claims as distorted or false.
Many of the allegations centered on Blizzard, which led several women who worked there to speak out on social media about their own awful experiences at the company. What was particularly painful for many of them, some said, was that they saw Blizzard as a dream job. They'd grown up admiring masterpieces like Diablo II and StarCraft and hoped to join a company that seemed idyllic, only to experience what they described as sexism and abuse when they arrived. Only a fraction of employees at Blizzard were women, according to the complaint, which made it feel at times like a frat house.
Veteran employees use language like "bleed Blizzard blue" to describe their love for the company. The result was a stream of acclaimed and influential titles, but no game would be worth the sort of treatment described in the lawsuit.
Activision has spent the past few years pushing for changes to Blizzard, though it appeared to be focused on less rotten aspects of the culture. Activision's growing influence has instead impacted the parts of Blizzard that were universally beloved.
I wrote Thursday about how Activision's push for Blizzard to cut costs and focus on big hits helped lead to the company's first ever flop last year— Warcraft III: Reforged, a remake of an earlier classic. The game was smaller and less lucrative than Diablo IV and Overwatch 2, expected to be smash hits, so it became less of a priority at Blizzard. The result was a well-documented disaster.
But the game isn't the only thing Activision has been meddling with at Blizzard.
Look to France
Last year, Blizzard informed employees that it was shutting down its Versailles office, which was largely responsible for localization, marketing and customer service in Europe. This kicked off a lengthy negotiation period with the union that ended last week. As part of this process, the company sent out a letter to affected employees justifying why it had to fire them all. The document, which was reviewed by Bloomberg, is full of criticisms of Blizzard's finances and interesting numbers that reflect Activision's future plans.
A few stats from the letter:
- Blizzard's staff was made up of about 52% game developers as of December 2019. For comparison, the company said, in March 2020, Ubisoft had 85% game developers, and Take-Two was 77%. The conclusion: "Blizzard is therefore lagging behind its competitors."
- In 2019, 40% of Blizzard's revenue came from microtransactions—those in-game purchases that irk players but can significantly boost a game's value. But across the industry, microtransactions made up 78% of video game companies' revenue, the letter said.
- On a similar note, only 12% of Blizzard's 2019 revenue came from mobile games, whereas other companies are making more than half of their revenue from mobile. Activision wants to change that.
This push may be mixed news for Blizzard fans. More development staff could mean more games, which might please players who are accustomed to waiting years between new Blizzard releases. But an emphasis on microtransactions and mobile games won't be welcome news to fans who prefer to play on PCs and consoles or spend money on a game just once.
Plus, big cultural changes can unfold in more subtle ways. One former Blizzard employee recently told me that they knew things were starting to change when a team's sponsored lunches were canceled. Another said they started seeing finance people in meetings where they wouldn't have normally been. These small moves can add up to large shifts as veteran Blizzard employees worry about the company's culture changing from, make great games first and the money will follow to, worry about money—all the time. The company's emphasis on billion-dollar franchises has already led staff to leave and pursue independent development.
"We are grateful to our Versailles employees for their dedicated service in support of our player communities and will continue to support them through the measures agreed," an Activision Blizzard spokesman said.
Great games come first
Under co-founder and former Chief Executive Officer Mike Morhaime, who left the company in 2018, Blizzard's development decisions had always been made with players' best interests in mind. When it became clear in 2012 that Diablo III's controversial "real money" auction house was ruining the game's balance by allowing people to pay for the best gear, Morhaime decided to remove it. When the card game Hearthstone seemed likely to fail and was almost canceled, Blizzard took a risk and stuck with it anyway, leading to a massive hit when it came out in 2014.
But since 2017, with a slow release schedule and World of Warcraft subscribers declining, Blizzard's revenue at times hasn't lived up to Activision's expectations. A few high-profile failures, such as the costly cancelation of the online game Titan, gave Activision's executives a foot in the door to exert more control. And Morhaime's departure left a massive void. His successor, J. Allen Brack, was named president rather than CEO—a reflection of Blizzard's reduced power and autonomy. (Activision boss Bobby Kotick is now the company's one and only CEO.)
In an email to staff last night, Brack called the labor lawsuit's allegations "extremely troubling," adding, "I disdain 'bro culture.'" But internally, some Blizzard staff have resurfaced a 2010 video showing Brack and several other top developers laughing off a question from a woman asking for World of Warcraft's female characters to be less sexualized. Culture issues existed long before Activision began intervening in Blizzard's operations.
Kotick's Activision will look to find a way to maintain the degree of quality Blizzard is known for, while addressing complaints about the culture and, of course, fortifying the bottom line. Blizzard is certainly changing, but perhaps not in the ways it really needs to.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 26, 2021, 10:50:18 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 23, 2021, 11:02:11 AM
I don't understand why this is a matter for the court. Doesn't the state have an administrative body to rule on such things?
This is something that would go before our Human Rights Tribunal or Worksafe (the administrative body which regulates safe workplaces, including being harassment free). Those decisions would then be subject to judicial review by the court if there was some error in the initial decision or direction. The court would not be the initial decision maker.
Seems a bit cumbersome to require a court process before meaning remedies can be applied when there is admitted bad behaviour.
Don't know how it works in California; every state does things their own way.
At the federal level, the EEOC does handle some complaints administratively, but most contested matters are litigated in the courts. It is common for private disputes to be settled at the agency level, in which case the courts don't get involved.
As a practical matter, no private party that contests the charges, as Blizzard is doing here, would accept the kind of remedies being sought in this case without invoking their right to judicial review.
I agree that judicial review would likely follow if it was an administrative decision but that is a lot more efficient from the perspective of court time.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2021, 11:34:28 AM
I agree that judicial review would likely follow if it was an administrative decision but that is a lot more efficient from the perspective of court time.
What DFEH is doing in this case has nothing to do with administrative efficiency. They are sending a message and not just to Activision. To the whole industry.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 27, 2021, 02:26:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2021, 11:34:28 AM
I agree that judicial review would likely follow if it was an administrative decision but that is a lot more efficient from the perspective of court time.
What DFEH is doing in this case has nothing to do with administrative efficiency. They are sending a message and not just to Activision. To the whole industry.
And that is part of what I find a bit surprising. That a government agency can sue in court to enforce its own regulatory framework. It has a strong stench of abuse of process. Why not just exercise the statutory power they have? And if that is lacking - what are are they in court? As an outside observer this process is odd.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2021, 02:37:38 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 27, 2021, 02:26:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2021, 11:34:28 AM
I agree that judicial review would likely follow if it was an administrative decision but that is a lot more efficient from the perspective of court time.
What DFEH is doing in this case has nothing to do with administrative efficiency. They are sending a message and not just to Activision. To the whole industry.
And that is part of what I find a bit surprising. That a government agency can sue in court to enforce its own regulatory framework. It has a strong stench of abuse of process. Why not just exercise the statutory power they have? And if that is lacking - what are are they in court? As an outside observer this process is odd.
Employment commissions in the US perform several functions. On the one hand they investigate and attempt to "conciliate" (settle) individual private employment claims. This is more of a mediative/neutral function. Some of them also arbitrate claims by state employees - this an arbitration role. And finally, they have a prosecutorial-like function - they investigate allegations of pervasive and flagrant violations of discrimination laws and bring cases if they find such violations have occurred. The stautory framework embraces all of these functions.
This case falls into category 3. The agency investigated multiple allegations of wrongdoing and found what it believed be widespread and pervasive firm-wide bad conduct. The case is brought explicitly in the public interest from remedial and deterrence functions. There is no abuse of process because the agency is authorized by statute to bring such cases and the court system provides a fair and neutral forum. (at least in theory)
So Blizzard has seen the light. Well, a more cynical person would say they no longer have any choice.
QuoteThis has been a difficult and upsetting week.
I want to recognize and thank all those who have come forward in the past and in recent days. I so appreciate your courage. Every voice matters - and we will do a better job of listening now, and in the future.
Our initial responses to the issues we face together, and to your concerns, were, quite frankly, tone deaf.
It is imperative that we acknowledge all perspectives and experiences and respect the feelings of those who have been mistreated in any way. I am sorry that we did not provide the right empathy and understanding.
Many of you have told us that active outreach comes from caring so deeply for the Company. That so many people have reached out and shared thoughts, suggestions, and highlighted opportunities for improvement is a powerful reflection of how you care for our communities of colleagues and players – and for each other. Ensuring that we have a safe and welcoming work environment is my highest priority. The leadership team has heard you loud and clear.
We are taking swift action to be the compassionate, caring company you came to work for and to ensure a safe environment. There is no place anywhere at our Company for discrimination, harassment, or unequal treatment of any kind.
We will do everything possible to make sure that together, we improve and build the kind of inclusive workplace that is essential to foster creativity and inspiration.
I have asked the law firm WilmerHale to conduct a review of our policies and procedures to ensure that we have and maintain best practices to promote a respectful and inclusive workplace. This work will begin immediately. The WilmerHale team will be led by Stephanie Avakian, who is a member of the management team at WilmerHale and was most recently the Director of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission's Division of Enforcement.
We encourage anyone with an experience you believe violates our policies or in any way made you uncomfortable in the workplace to use any of our many existing channels for reporting or to reach out to Stephanie. She and her team at WilmerHale will be available to speak with you on a confidential basis and can be reached at [email protected] or 202-247-2725. Your outreach will be kept confidential. Of course, NO retaliation will be tolerated.
We are committed to long-lasting change. Effective immediately, we will be taking the following actions.
Employee Support. We will continue to investigate each and every claim and will not hesitate to take decisive action. To strengthen our capabilities in this area we are adding additional senior staff and other resources to both the Compliance team and the Employee Relations team.
Listening Sessions. We know many of you have inspired ideas on how to improve our culture. We will be creating safe spaces, moderated by third parties, for you to speak out and share areas for improvement.
Personnel Changes. We are immediately evaluating managers and leaders across the Company. Anyone found to have impeded the integrity of our processes for evaluating claims and imposing appropriate consequences will be terminated.
Hiring Practices. Earlier this year I sent an email requiring all hiring managers to ensure they have diverse candidate slates for all open positions. We will be adding compliance resources to ensure that our hiring managers are in fact adhering to this directive.
In-game Changes. We have heard the input from employee and player communities that some of our in-game content is inappropriate. We are removing that content.
Your well-being remains my priority and I will spare no company resource ensuring that our company has the most welcoming, comfortable, and safe culture possible.
You have my unwavering commitment that we will improve our company together, and we will be the most inspiring, inclusive entertainment company in the world.
Yours sincerely,
Bobby
https://kotaku.com/activision-ceo-bobby-kotick-comments-on-harassment-alle-1847374627
Kotick's long con is threaten here so of course he's responding.
Eh, I'll believe it when meaningful change happens. Until then it's a executive saying what he needs to say in hopes that the stock price stays up (it apparently dropped 9% after news of the walkout).
From the looks of it a major purge seems necessary (but not sufficient), including removing all senior managers, if the owners actually want to change the company.
Quote from: viper37 on July 28, 2021, 09:51:12 AM
So Blizzard has seen the light. Well, a more cynical person would say they no longer have any choice.
The jump off a cliff strategy still attracts some proponents, but for some reason they tend to lack staying power.
Gaming companies are shit to work for, by damn near every account I've read, seen, or heard. They grind up young devs looking for a first joba nd then fire them as soon as the time comes to give them a raise.
This is just another aspect of a poisonous industry.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 27, 2021, 08:45:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2021, 02:37:38 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 27, 2021, 02:26:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 27, 2021, 11:34:28 AM
I agree that judicial review would likely follow if it was an administrative decision but that is a lot more efficient from the perspective of court time.
What DFEH is doing in this case has nothing to do with administrative efficiency. They are sending a message and not just to Activision. To the whole industry.
And that is part of what I find a bit surprising. That a government agency can sue in court to enforce its own regulatory framework. It has a strong stench of abuse of process. Why not just exercise the statutory power they have? And if that is lacking - what are are they in court? As an outside observer this process is odd.
Employment commissions in the US perform several functions. On the one hand they investigate and attempt to "conciliate" (settle) individual private employment claims. This is more of a mediative/neutral function. Some of them also arbitrate claims by state employees - this an arbitration role. And finally, they have a prosecutorial-like function - they investigate allegations of pervasive and flagrant violations of discrimination laws and bring cases if they find such violations have occurred. The stautory framework embraces all of these functions.
This case falls into category 3. The agency investigated multiple allegations of wrongdoing and found what it believed be widespread and pervasive firm-wide bad conduct. The case is brought explicitly in the public interest from remedial and deterrence functions. There is no abuse of process because the agency is authorized by statute to bring such cases and the court system provides a fair and neutral forum. (at least in theory)
We do it a bit differently. An administrative tribunal separate from the investigative/prosecutorial group performs function 3. That decision is then subject to judicial review. It removes a lot of administrative clutter from the court. Also you get a tribunal that knows its own jurisprudence rather than trying to educate a judge about the issues involved.
Quote from: Syt on July 28, 2021, 10:14:58 AM
Eh, I'll believe it when meaningful change happens. Until then it's a executive saying what he needs to say in hopes that the stock price stays up (it apparently dropped 9% after news of the walkout).
of course, it's the main reason he's doing it. But I feel like, at this point, Blizzard will have no choice but to implement significant changes. And hiring that lawyer firm to investigate each case seems like a step in the right direction.
https://hard-drive.net/bobby-kotick-announces-new-apology-letters-will-be-written-by-alternating-teams-at-treyarch-and-infinity-ward-each-year-for-foreseeable-future/
QuoteBobby Kotick Announces New Apology Letters Will Be Written by Alternating Teams at Treyarch and Infinity Ward Each Year for Foreseeable Future
SANTA MONICA, Calif. — Following a massive employee strike at Activision Blizzard due to years of harsh treatment and sexual harassment, Bobby Kotick has written a letter to employees to apologize for the company's actions and announce that a new apology letter will be released each year, written in alternating years by Treyarch and Infinity Ward.
"We already have these guys on an alternating schedule producing new Call of Duty games each year, so why not have them also work on our new yearly apology letters to employees?" Kotick asked in his letter. "It's a very similar process to making Call of Duty, really. You don't need to recreate the entire letter each time, you just need to work from the base created in the previous letter, updating some language to fit modern events and trends. They just have to make sure that they stick to the core theme of the apology letter series: that we're very sorry, we investigated this ourselves and found no wrongdoing, and that we're committed to some vague change in the future."
In order to make sure that the apology letters stay true to the standards of Activision Blizzard, Kotick has given himself the role of Final Proofreader, a job that comes with a $50 million yearly salary.
:XD:
(In case you find the 50 million p.a. a bit silly ... seems in line with his IRL paycheck: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/activision-blizzard-pulls-out-a-win-on-say-on-pay-proposal-after-delaying-vote-for-a-week-11624299616 )
Fuck Blizzard.
https://kotaku.com/inside-blizzard-developers-infamous-bill-cosby-suite-1847378762
Meanwhile in Ubisoftland:
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2021-07-30-ubisoft-group-says-yves-guillemot-has-sidelined-its-demands-as-ceo-responds-to-open-letter
QuoteUbisoft group says Yves Guillemot has "sidelined" its demands as CEO responds to open letter
Over 1,000 current and former staff claim Assassin's Creed publisher "continues to protect and promote known offenders and their allies"
The group behind the open letter to Ubisoft's management has criticised CEO Yves Guillemot for failing to address their points and demands.
The original letter was published earlier this week, and called for the Assassin's Creed publisher to remove all offenders from the company and for industry-wide collaboration on new reporting processes.
GamesIndustry.biz has been told that, at the time of writing, over 1,000 current and former Ubisoft staff from 32 of the publisher's global studios have signed the letter.
CEO Yves Guillemot reacted to this letter in an email sent to all Ubisoft staff, as shared by Axios' Stephen Totilo on Twitter. GamesIndustry.biz has verified the contents of this email.
The letter mostly reiterated previous statements from Guillemot -- in particular the one he released in the wake of the Télégramme article -- saying that the company "made important progress over the past year." It also repeated Ubisoft's initial statement following the open letter about taking "the issues it raises seriously."
The statement also listed changes at the company over the past year, once again mostly reiterating measures that had been previously announced. It did add that a "new company wide survey" will be launched by the end of 2021 and that the company is currently looking for a new VP of global employee relations.
Guillemot added that Ubisoft will provide an update on these matters in Q3, "including next steps on the Values Project, D&I and [its] HR roadmap."
"Yesterday's letter expresses concern from employees who want to make Ubisoft a better place," Guillemot said. "We have heard clearly from this letter that not everyone is confident in the processes that have been put in place to manage misconduct reports. This is a top priority for Anika [Grant, chief people officer], who continues to ensure they are robust and independent."
Guillemot concluded by offering for any member of staff to reach out to him personally, or other members of management.
However, the group behind the original letter has reached out to GamesIndustry.biz with a final response, in which it says the "majority of our demands were sidelined and few of our points seem to have been addressed."
"We are aware that the company has made some improvements, and we are happy to hear that Yves and the leadership team agree that it is not enough," the group continued.
"However, Ubisoft continues to protect and promote known offenders and their allies. We see management continuing to avoid this issue. It is also worth clarifying that an invitation to reach out to company management personally is not the same as having a collective seat at the table."
The group said it "[looks] forward to a full response" and reiterated the issues and demands the letter raised, emphasising the need for cross-industry collaboration on ground rules and processes for how these offences should be handled in future.
"By being the first to start this collaboration Ubisoft has the opportunity to be at the forefront of creating a better future for the games industry," the letter concluded. "We demand that this work be done in collaboration with employees at all levels.
"We want to see real, fundamental change within Ubisoft and across the industry, for the sake of our members. Again, we look forward to a response that addresses all the issues raised and properly acknowledges our demands."
Additionally, a member of the group told us: "Even though change has been happening and there seems to be a major restructuring happening internally, it's hypocritical of management to say that they're working on it while still harboring, protecting, permitting, and shuffling around known toxic and abusive people to other positions of power. Morale and trust is low.
"It's exhausting, frustrating and it counters the messaging they give us. We cannot be happy or satisfied with this hypocrisy. For the one person who signed there are countless others who simply were too terrified. Do better or keep losing good people."
In its original letter, the group also showed support for the Activision Blizzard group that has been protesting over the company's response to the lawsuit regarding alleged discrimination and harassment of its employees.
Ok after reading all of this I feel like not even frat boys deserve to be associated with the crazy shit video game companies do. The name of douchebags everywhere is being dragged through the mud here.
It is pretty ridiculous that this kind of thing would ever be tolerated in a business environments. I hope people stop buying their games but it seems like too much to expect consumers to police this stuff. The courts and law enforcement and the institutions are really failing the employees at these companies.
They should really consider forming a video game developers union, nobody else is likely to help them if these kind of conditions keep getting tolerated even years after outright scandals occur.
Quote from: Syt on July 29, 2021, 10:03:43 AM
(In case you find the 50 million p.a. a bit silly ... seems in line with his IRL paycheck: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/activision-blizzard-pulls-out-a-win-on-say-on-pay-proposal-after-delaying-vote-for-a-week-11624299616 )
Kotick is notorious for paying himself huge amounts of money to do nothing while firing actual productive developers. I am not sure why share holders put up with it.
PC Gamer have a summary of the issues at Blizzard of the last 3 years: https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/how-blizzards-reputation-collapsed-in-just-3-years/
It seems after the hits that were Hearthstone and Overwatch they've gone downhill a fair bit.
Is WoW not raking in the steady cash that it used to, or does that just pay their minimum wage now? :P
Probably. But a lot of big WoW streamers have switched to Final Fantasy 14 recently because of how tired they were of WoW, and took a chunk of their viewers with them. Remains to be seen if they stay with FF14 or not.
Quote from: Syt on August 02, 2021, 02:55:45 AM
PC Gamer have a summary of the issues at Blizzard of the last 3 years: https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/how-blizzards-reputation-collapsed-in-just-3-years/
It seems after the hits that were Hearthstone and Overwatch they've gone downhill a fair bit.
It's a lot like Bioware. The people who made the company the darling success it was have moved on to other ventures.
All that being said, these kind of letter writing campaigns are kind of problematic.
I mean....a thousand people sign a letter. OK. That means how many did not sign the letter?
These "articles" from journalists quote anonymous sources making statements as statements of fact. You cannot (or should not) fire people based on some letter that someone convinced some people to sign. Is employment a popularity contest? If I can find X people at my company who will sign a letter saying they don't like someone, should I fire them on that basis alone?
Shit like this:
QuoteAdditionally, a member of the group told us: "Even though change has been happening and there seems to be a major restructuring happening internally, it's hypocritical of management to say that they're working on it while still harboring, protecting, permitting, and shuffling around known toxic and abusive people to other positions of power. Morale and trust is low.
A "member of the group" told "us" that management is "shuffling around known toxic and abusive people". WTF does that actually mean? What people? Who? How are the "known"? Is there a paper trail? What does "toxic" and "abusive" mean here, specifically to the particule people in question?
There is no way to know, and nothing that can or should be actioned based on this kind of bullshit. There is an awful lot of smoke here, so I am confident there is certainly a fire going, but this reporting is basically just gossip and mob pressure to get people fired some minority of workers have decided ought to be fired.
Maybe those people in question really do deserve to be fired for good reasons. But I sure as hell cannot tell because some thousand people signed a letter. According to wikipedia, they ahve about 18,000 employees. That means 17000 of them did NOT sign a letter demanding that "known toxic and abusive people" (presumably the letter writers have a list?) be fired. What does that mean?
I don't see the problem. The person quoted says that the company should get rid of known abusers. I would be surprised if the person quoted or the people signing the letter want the company to get rid of people based on just the letter or the person's statement to the press.
Quote from: The Brain on August 02, 2021, 09:38:22 AM
I don't see the problem. The person quoted says that the company should get rid of known abusers. I would be surprised if the person quoted or the people signing the letter want the company to get rid of people based on just the letter or the person's statement to the press.
The problem is that hiring and firing people is a legal process, not a political one. And this kind of public mob shaming campaigns turn it into a farce, and it seems pretty clear to me that the goal of this exposure is to generate outrage and clicks, which makes careful investigation and reasoned response to what is (or ought to be) a pretty careful, thoughtful process basically impossible.
"The person quoted says the company should get rid of known abusers".
OK - but that is true whether some person is quoted or not. And the fact that 1/18 employees signed a letter doesn't tell us much of anything about whether or not the company is in fact doing that or not.
I think the dynamics of a work place such as those documented re: Afribisi at Blizzard or Ubisoft make it pretty clear this isn't about a popularity contest. I am likely not convinced at all this is all about clickbait. And having been in work places prior to "me two* movement that bent over backwards to transfer people rather than fire them, despite clearly abusive or predatory behavior, this rings a lot truer than some sort of witch hunt based on vague rumors about unpleasant people.
Quote from: Berkut on August 02, 2021, 10:10:12 AM
Quote from: The Brain on August 02, 2021, 09:38:22 AM
I don't see the problem. The person quoted says that the company should get rid of known abusers. I would be surprised if the person quoted or the people signing the letter want the company to get rid of people based on just the letter or the person's statement to the press.
The problem is that hiring and firing people is a legal process, not a political one. And this kind of public mob shaming campaigns turn it into a farce, and it seems pretty clear to me that the goal of this exposure is to generate outrage and clicks, which makes careful investigation and reasoned response to what is (or ought to be) a pretty careful, thoughtful process basically impossible.
"The person quoted says the company should get rid of known abusers".
OK - but that is true whether some person is quoted or not. And the fact that 1/18 employees signed a letter doesn't tell us much of anything about whether or not the company is in fact doing that or not.
I still don't really understand what the problem is here. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Quote from: Berkut on August 02, 2021, 09:28:04 AM
Maybe those people in question really do deserve to be fired for good reasons. But I sure as hell cannot tell because some thousand people signed a letter. According to wikipedia, they ahve about 18,000 employees. That means 17000 of them did NOT sign a letter demanding that "known toxic and abusive people" (presumably the letter writers have a list?) be fired. What does that mean?
It means that they have a very serious personnel problem, if 1000 of their people are angry or desperate enough to put their names on a public letter criticizing management. Whatever the truth of the accusations may be. it is not a good sign for management.
Quote from: Valmy on July 31, 2021, 09:24:09 PM
Ok after reading all of this I feel like not even frat boys deserve to be associated with the crazy shit video game companies do. The name of douchebags everywhere is being dragged through the mud here.
"Frat" being shorthand here for industries traditionally dominated by men and with a distinctive culture.
This has always been a problem in the banking industry but because of the sheer amounts of money involved and the social pretensions of the bankers (you don't see a lot video game designers on the board of the Metropolitan Opera) the banking firms have been more aggressive blanketing their firms with professional compliance people then it appears the gaming industry has.
Quote from: Oexmelin on August 02, 2021, 12:21:51 PM
I think the dynamics of a work place such as those documented re: Afribisi at Blizzard or Ubisoft make it pretty clear this isn't about a popularity contest. I am likely not convinced at all this is all about clickbait. And having been in work places prior to "me two* movement that bent over backwards to transfer people rather than fire them, despite clearly abusive or predatory behavior, this rings a lot truer than some sort of witch hunt based on vague rumors about unpleasant people.
Yeah - I also think there's a particular issue with industries people are desperate to be often the more creative/"calling" sectors: journalism, fashion, arts, charities etc - or where there's huge financial rewards: finance (especially I think the asset management/PE sort of world).
I think in more "normal" sectors - especially ones without a "rainmaker" culture as well - things are normally different. But the combination of "talent" that need tolerating or special treatment and a huge pool of potential juniors desperate to get in is very dangerous.
I think I made it pretty clear that there is definitely something wrong. Note my comment about smoke and fires.
I just don't like the idea that just BECAUSE there is smoke, we must assume there is fire, and start firing people without bothering to actually investigate, which is what seems to be demanded here, in that people are bitching about action not being taken.
Maybe action IS being taken, but that action takes time when taken with the deliberation and care that is due.
Or maybe they are doing fuck all and hoping it all blows over. It's pretty much impossible to tell.
What I can tell though it that the reporting is pretty clearly one sided and intended to get people to click on articles rather then inform anyone or try to actually understand what is going on.
The mob sells clicks, for sure.
I don't see how you fire known abusers without investigating.
Quote from: Berkut on August 02, 2021, 01:59:15 PMMaybe action IS being taken, but that action takes time when taken with the deliberation and care that is due.
Or maybe they are doing fuck all and hoping it all blows over. It's pretty much impossible to tell.
This isn't related to abuse per se. But based on my interactions with HR on literally any subject - I have my suspicions which is more likely :lol:
Blizzard pres J.Allen Brack is out.
https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/blizzards-president-is-out-studio-to-be-co-led-by-a-woman-for-first-time-in-its-history/
QuoteBlizzard's president is out, studio to be co-led by a woman for first time in its history
By Rich Stanton about 1 hour ago
J. Allen Brack will be replaced by Jen Oneal and Mike Ybarra as co-heads.
On July 20th, California's Department of Fair Employment and Housing filed a lawsuit against Activision Blizzard collecting "numerous complaints about unlawful harassment, discrimination, and retaliation" at the company. Shortly afterwards, more than 3,000 Activision Blizzard employees signed an open letter to management speaking up for victims and making a call for "official statements that recognize the seriousness of the allegations and demonstrate compassion for victims of harassment and assault."
Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick promised a rapid response. Today Blizzard has announced that J. Allen Brack is leaving his position as the president of the studio, to be replaced by Jen Oneal and Mike Ybarra as co-heads of the studio.
Jen Oneal has been at Blizzard since January, before which she was the studio head of Vicarious Visions. Mike Ybarra was a longtime Xbox employee, holding various positions there, before joining Blizzard in 2019 as an executive vice president. Blizzard's statement says: "Jen and Mike have more than three decades of gaming industry experience between them. Moving forward, they will share responsibilities over game development and company operations."
Brack had been named in the California lawsuit, specifically concerning how he'd dealt with allegations made against Alex Afrasiabi drinking too much and harassing female employees at company events. It's alleged Brack's punishment for Afrasiabi, verbal counseling, amounted to little more than a slap on the wrist for such behaviour.
Brack was also on-stage during a 2010 Blizzcon Q&A panel where the various developers' responses to a question about the over-sexualisation of characters is simply embarrassing.
Today's statement from Blizzard goes on to make explicit that this change is related to working culture:
"Both leaders are deeply committed to all of our employees; to the work ahead to ensure Blizzard is the safest, most welcoming workplace possible for women, and people of any gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or background; to upholding and reinforcing our values; and to rebuilding your trust. With their many years of industry experience and deep commitment to integrity and inclusivity, Jen and Mike will lead Blizzard with care, compassion, and a dedication to excellence."
As journalist and former Kotaku EIC Stephen Totilo pointed out, the timing of this seems tied to a quarterly earnings call today on which Brack would have been expected to field questions.
Here is a statement from J. Allen Brack, Blizzard's departing president:
"I am confident that Jen Oneal and Mike Ybarra will provide the leadership Blizzard needs to realize its full potential and will accelerate the pace of change. I anticipate they will do so with passion and enthusiasm and that they can be trusted to lead with the highest levels of integrity and commitment to the components of our culture that make Blizzard so special.
"Finally, thank you all for being a part of the Blizzard community, and for your passion and determination for safety and equality for all."
The discrimination lawsuit is just the latest in a long string of controversies involving Blizzard's management in recent times (here's a timeline of how the company's reputation has collapsed over the last three years). Between massive layoffs, numerous reports on its toxic workplace, and highly anticipated launches reportedly sabotaged by mismanagement, the perception of what used to be PC gaming's darling developer has changed utterly.
The Californian state's proceedings against Blizzard are still pending, and could last for months or years: here's everything we know about the current situation.
PC Gamer also has a handy timeline summary of the last two weeks (in reverse order):
https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/activision-blizzard-lawsuit-controversy-timeline-explained/
QuoteFriday, July 30: Vice publishes an article about Blizzard recruiters at a 2015 hacker conference harassing a security researcher who asked about a penetration testing (cybersecurity auditing) position. "One of them asked me when was the last time I was personally penetrated, if I liked being penetrated, and how often I got penetrated," she said.
On the same day, Waypoint writes about an Activision Blizzard IT worker at the company's Minnesota office who installed spy cameras in the unisex bathroom. He pleaded guilty in 2018 to "interference with privacy."
IGN also publishes a report based on interviews with seven current and former employees who speak to a number of issues, including women being evaluated differently than men inside Blizzard and breastfeeding rooms not having locks, at one point. One employee characterized the company's attempts to fix its culture as "putting lipstick on it."
Thursday, July 29: The New York Times publishes an investigation into Activision Blizzard with newly public accounts of sexual harassment and discrimination. An employee who worked at the company from 2014 to 2017 said she was paid less than her boyfriend, who joined the company at the same time doing the same work, and that a manager messaged her on Facebook asking what kind of porn she watched.
Another woman, who joined Activision in 2011 as a vice president, said that an executive "pressured her to have sex with him because she 'deserved to have some fun' after her boyfriend had died weeks earlier."
Wednesday, July 28: Employees hold a walkout at Blizzard HQ, while others participate in the work stoppage remotely. Employees also respond to CEO Bobby Kotick's letter saying they are "pleased to see that our collective voices... have convinced leadership to change the tone of their communications," but that Kotick "fails to address critical elements at the heart of employee concerns." The response reiterates the four demands from Tuesday. "Today's walkout will demonstrate that this is not a one-time event that our leaders can ignore. We will not return to silence; we will not be placated by the same processes that led us to this point," the letter says.
Game developers across the industry share messages of solidarity with the walkout.
Kotaku publishes a report on Blizzard's "Cosby Suite," a recurring convention party room that Afrasiabi and other employees texted about bringing "hot chixx" to. Greg Street, a former World of Warcraft lead systems designer and current VP of MMO R&D at Riot, who is seen in a photo, claims that the hotel room was "a green room at Blizzcon that many of us at the time used to take a break and relax during the convention" and that "hot chixx" was a joke.
Activision Blizzard confirms to Kotaku that Alex Afrasiabi was terminated in 2020 "for his misconduct in his treatment of other employees."
Tuesday, July 27: The World of Warcraft team announces that it plans to remove references from WoW that are "not appropriate," likely including NPCs and items related to Alex Afrasiabi.
Employees state they plan to walk out on Wednesday to protest the company's response to the lawsuit. The open letter passes 3,000 signatories (Activision Blizzard has approximately 9,500 employees). The plans for the work stoppage come with four demands:
- An end to mandatory arbitration in employee contracts
- More diverse recruiting and hiring practices
- Publication of compensation data, promotion rates and salary ranges
- A company-wide Diversity, Equity & Inclusion task force empowered to hire a third party company to audit Activision Blizzard
Late Tuesday afternoon, CEO Bobby Kotick writes a public note to employees calling the company's initial response "tone deaf," and says "We are taking swift action to be the compassionate, caring company you came to work for and to ensure a safe environment. There is no place anywhere at our company for discrimination, harassment, or unequal treatment of any kind."
Kotick's letter announces immediate steps to investigate claims, hold listening sessions, make personnel changes, enforce diverse hiring practices and change inappropriate in-game content.
"Anyone found to have impeded the integrity of our processes for evaluating claims and imposing appropriate consequences will be terminated."
Monday, July 26: Activision holds an "all-hands" meeting that only has room for 500 staff. Executive Joshua Taub reportedly attempts to address the lawsuit, saying that there's "zero tolerance" for the behavior described in the lawsuit, and that Activision Blizzard works with employees and the accused to "work on a resolution." Taub also says that Fran Townsend's response "wasn't the right communication."
Advertisement
More than 1,000 current and former Activision Blizzard employees sign an open letter to management calling Townsend's statement "abhorrent and insulting to all that we believe our company should stand for." The employee statement continues "Our values as employees are not accurately reflected in the words and actions of our leadership... Categorizing the claims that have been made as 'distorted, and in many cases false' creates a company atmosphere that disbelieves victims... Immediate corrections are needed from the highest level of our organization."
The letter ends with a statement that the employees "stand with all our friends, teammates, and colleagues, as well as the members of our dedicated community, who have experienced mistreatment or harassment of any kind."
Signatures from current and former continue to roll in.
Saturday, July 24: Former Blizzard senior vice president Chris Metzen tweets a response to the lawsuit, beginning with "We failed, and I'm sorry."
Friday July 23: Activision Blizzard chief compliance officer Fran Townsend sends a very different message to staff, calling the lawsuit's depiction of AB "distorted and untrue" and that Activision Blizzard "truly values equality and fairness." Townsend says that when she joined the executive leadership team in March 2021 she was certain she "was joining a company where I would be valued, treated with respect ,and provided opportunities equal to those afforded to the men of the company." Townsend reiterates the initial response that the lawsuit's claims were inaccurate.
Blizzard co-founder and former president Mike Morhaime publishes "My thoughts," stating "I wanted to acknowledge the women who had awful experiences. I hear you, I believe you, and I am so sorry to have let you down."
A video from BlizzCon 2010 goes viral on Twitter. During a WoW panel Q&A, a woman asks about the possibility of less sexualized female characters. The panelists, including Alex Afrasiabi and now-president J. Allen Brack, laugh and make jokes in response.
Thursday, July 22: Blizzard president J. Allen Brack emails staff to say that the behavior detailed in the suit is "completely unacceptable." Activision president Rob Kostich emails staff calling the allegations "deeply disturbing" and says that "we, as a company, take every allegation seriously."
Wednesday, July 21: News breaks that the lawsuit has been filed. In a statement sent to PC Gamer and other press outlets, an Activision Blizzard spokesperson said that the lawsuit includes "distorted, and in many cases false, descriptions of Blizzard's past" and that the DFEH was "required by law to adequately investigate and to have good faith discussions with us to better understand and to resolve any claims or concerns before going to litigation, but they failed to do so. Instead, they rushed to file an inaccurate complaint, as we will demonstrate in court."
Tuesday, July 20: California Department of Fair Employment and Housing files a lawsuit against Activision Blizzard alleging discrimination and sexual harassment against women in the workplace. The lawsuit mentions "cube crawls" in which drunk male employees subjected women to unwanted advances; a lack of women in leadership positions; unequal pay for women; and a lack of action from HR around many of these complaints. The suit also specifically calls out the actions of former WoW senior creative director Alex Afrasiabi, who was "permitted to engage in blatant sexual harassment with little to no repurcussions."
What should we expect from the lawsuit itself?
The Department of Fair Employment and Housing's lawsuit has started a public maelstrom for Activision, but a court hearing could be weeks or months off—if the case goes to a trial at all.
"I don't see either case as going to an actual trial," lawyer Kellen Voyer tells PC Gamer, referring to the DFEH's case against Activision Blizzard as well as one it filed against Riot Games. "Typically the parties will settle out once the defendant has a better idea of the evidence being brought by the state and the strength of its case. The current negative press... is another reason why the companies will not want to go through a long, public trial."
The DFEH's news page shows a number of settlements from the past three years to resolve discrimination and harassment cases, for sums ranging from $50,000 to $6.2 million. Voyer points out that a sexual harassment case brought by the state is stronger than a case from an individual, partially becasue it's public rather than private arbitration. (Ending mandatory arbitration in Activision Blizzard contracts is one of the demands listed by employees who participated in the July 28 work stoppage.)
Because the DFEH's investigation into Activision Blizzard must have been ongoing for some time, Voyer says the lawsuit is a way to publicly push Activision Blizzard into a settlement. The DFEH filing does request a jury trial, but this is standard practice and doesn't rule out the likely possibility of a settlement before trial begins.
"Activision Blizzard will fight tooth and nail to avoid [a trial] as I would expect a jury (especially in California) to come down hard on the company," Voyer says. " A settlement is likely before it gets to that stage."
Going after a company as big as Activision Blizzard gives the DFEH a chance to make a public spectacle; even if it doesn't have strong enough evidence to push the company into a multi-million dollar settlement, it could have significant ramifications.
"To make an example of a company, even through the filing of the case and the negative PR that results for the company, will hopefully effectuate change through deterrence: by putting companies on notice that there are real, material, ramifications for failing to address toxic culture," Voyer says.
It's still possible that this case goes to trial. If it does, the DFEH will likely be pushing for big monetary penalties and for Activision Blizzard to open itself up to oversight as it enacts plans to repair its workplace issues.
If Blizzard won at trial, it would likely push for no monetary damages and, in Voyer's words, "the usual corporate, general promise of 'we will change and do better.'"
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 02, 2021, 02:04:36 PM
Quote from: Berkut on August 02, 2021, 01:59:15 PMMaybe action IS being taken, but that action takes time when taken with the deliberation and care that is due.
Or maybe they are doing fuck all and hoping it all blows over. It's pretty much impossible to tell.
This isn't related to abuse per se. But based on my interactions with HR on literally any subject - I have my suspicions which is more likely :lol:
Considering how in the Ubisoft case, one of the accused harasser's was married to the head of HR at the time ...
Meanwhile, outside reviewers say Ubisoft have done little to address the issues brought forth last year besides giving some people a golden ass kick.
Quote from: Berkut on August 02, 2021, 01:59:15 PM
I just don't like the idea that just BECAUSE there is smoke, we must assume there is fire, and start firing people without bothering to actually investigate, which is what seems to be demanded here, in that people are bitching about action not being taken.
I would agree with you about firing people just because there's smoke.
However, reading between the lines, I get the feeling that we are at this point now because there were many complaints & investigations, internals, than external by the California agency, and, the problem not only persists, but Blizzard seemed intent on sweeping it under the rug. The 1000 employees who signed the letter are reacting to Blizzard's internal e-mail from the GOP waterboarding expert lady..
We can not presume anything about the 16 000 others. Maybe they are fine with what's happening. Maybe they are not. Maybe they've never witnessed anything wrong. Maybe they think Blizzard is exemplary. Maybe they think they will be retaliated against if they speak and they can't afford to loser their job, even temporarily. Or maybe they think they'll be branded as difficult to work with for most video game companies in the US. We do not know that.
I do not see the email as mob pressure to fire a list of specific someones. More like an answer to that bullshit email saying everything was fine under California's sun.
Quote from: Syt on August 03, 2021, 08:55:31 AM
Blizzard pres J.Allen Brack is out.
When they hired him I thought he might not be the guy for the job. Very immature.
(https://i.imgur.com/Qs0TGeL.jpg)
Looks like head of HR is out too.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 03, 2021, 11:18:12 AM
Quote from: Syt on August 03, 2021, 08:55:31 AM
Blizzard pres J.Allen Brack is out.
When they hired him I thought he might not be the guy for the job. Very immature.
Pfft. I support Moltar would have been better?
https://www.pcgamer.com/activision-blizzard-q3-2021-earnings/
QuoteBlizzard morale takes a hit following co-leader's surprise resignation
By Tyler Wilde about 6 hours ago
Activision Blizzard reported big earnings, but the consequences of high-profile exits may continue to manifest.
On Tuesday, Activision Blizzard announced its financial results for the period that includes the July filing of California's discrimination and sexual harassment lawsuit and the immediate aftermath. The headline for investors is that the company's revenue outlook for the end of the year is weaker than analysts projected, but it beat its third quarter forecast with net revenue of $2.07 billion, improving year-over-year with help from Diablo 2: Resurrected.
Finances felt like the call's secondary topic, however, as Activision Blizzard's leaders reiterated plans to overhaul recruiting and HR practices, and surprised employees with the news that Blizzard co-leader Jen Oneal is stepping down. The resignation came as a shock, and according to some has wounded morale at Blizzard just as it was starting to improve.
Last week, Activision Blizzard finally responded to a list of demands issued in July by the employees who organized a walkout. The company partially conceded to the demand to remove mandatory arbitration from employment contracts, agreeing to strike it for "individual sexual harassment and discrimination claims." Among a number of other things, Activision Blizzard has also promised increased pay transparency, recruiting policies that foster diversity, and a "zero-tolerance harassment policy," which will result in immediate firing and "forfeiture of future compensation."
A source inside Activision Blizzard told PC Gamer this week that they witnessed an overall positive response to last week's announcement. The timing was seen as suspect—the demands were acknowledged just in time to become talking points during Tuesday's investor call—but the partial win on arbitration was seen as a clear accomplishment, and the diverse recruiting policies reflect what individual Activision Blizzard teams have already been implementing without waiting for a corporate mandate. One thing still seen as missing is third-party oversight of hiring and HR practices, including by a committee chosen by employees, but the mood leading into the earnings call was certainly better than it was following a mistrusted email from executive Fran Townsend earlier in October.
However, the news that Oneal is stepping down as Blizzard co-leader just three months after taking the role has "killed" any morale boost from last week's concessions, according to that employee. Oneal and Mike Ybarra replaced former Blizzard boss J Allen Brack, who exited in August in the aftermath of the California lawsuit. With Oneal's resignation, Ybarra is now Blizzard's sole leader.
For some, Oneal's leadership was one of the best reasons they had to believe in a better future for Blizzard. They're now left wondering why Oneal would choose to leave so quickly, leading to speculation that something isn't being said.
"I am doing this not because I am without hope for Blizzard, quite the opposite—I'm inspired by the passion of everyone here, working towards meaningful, lasting change with their whole hearts," wrote Oneal in a letter to employees. "This energy has inspired me to step out and explore how I can do more to have games and diversity intersect, and hopefully make a broader industry impact that will benefit Blizzard (and other studios) as well."
Former Blizzard technical director Amy Dunham, who also announced her departure this week, pointed out that Blizzard's three most senior women all left this year.
"Before you make commitments to recruit more women (usually at entry level, where people have less choice to turn down opportunities), figure out and fix why all of your senior women choose to leave," she wrote on Twitter.
The past three months have seen a number of other resignations, as well as over 20 departures as the result of HR investigations and new, stricter policies. According to Tuesday's earnings report, the bottom line has been unscathed for now: Call of Duty's userbase is holding steady on PC and console, while Call of Duty Mobile has seen "double digit growth in the West" with a big jump in revenue. Blizzard's revenue grew 20% year-over-year due to the release of Diablo 2: Resurrected, Hearthstone enjoys stable popularity, and World of Warcraft is "on track" to have its best non-expansion year in a decade.
However, while Call of Duty: Vanguard releases this month and the next big Warzone update will be released in December, it was revealed during the earnings call that the next two big games from Blizzard are going to take longer than expected: Overwatch 2 and Diablo 4 didn't have public release dates, but we learned that their internal development timelines have been extended.
Activision Blizzard partially attributed the delays to the departures of company leaders. Diablo 4 game director Louis Barriga left the company for unspecified reasons following the July allegations, though a corporate statement about ensuring "a safe, productive work environment" implied a connection. Overwatch executive producer Chacko Sonny left Blizzard in September for reasons unrelated to the lawsuit, and back in April, Overwatch director Jeff Kaplan also left the company.
Attrition isn't a new issue for Activision Blizzard: A former employee recently told PC Gamer that they witnessed waves of employees leaving voluntarily alongside the 2019 and 2020 layoffs. Beyond the Overwatch 2 and Diablo 4 delays, other long-term consequences of the company's recent rate of employee turnover may still emerge.
"Our opportunities for growth have never been better, but we won't be able to realize all that growth potential without talent," said Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick during Tuesday's earnings call. "And to retain and attract the talent we need, we obviously have to be recognized as the very best place to work. This means we have to be the most welcoming and inclusive environment."
According to Kotick, the changes and initiatives announced so far are "just the beginning" of the company's plans, and employees and shareholders will receive quarterly updates on progress.
In unrelated news, I have been invited to the Diablo Immortal closed beta.
I played 5 mins, it's fine. I don't usually play games on my phone so I have no basis of comparison. It made my phone very hot.
Bobby... Activision is very far from being recognized as the best place to work. You fucking shitheel.
Quote from: Jacob on November 03, 2021, 09:42:48 PM
Bobby... Activision is very far from being recognized as the best place to work. You fucking shitheel.
That's his goal, as stated to shareholders anyway, to be recognized as the best place to work. He does not say they are there yet.
Quote from: viper37 on November 04, 2021, 09:53:31 AM
That's his goal, as stated to shareholders anyway, to be recognized as the best place to work. He does not say they are there yet.
I'm telling him... or rather, more realistically, I'm telling you... that he has a long way to go because he's a shitheel and he's created and maintained a company that has a reputation for being shitty to work for.
Quote from: Jacob on November 05, 2021, 07:48:07 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 04, 2021, 09:53:31 AM
That's his goal, as stated to shareholders anyway, to be recognized as the best place to work. He does not say they are there yet.
I'm telling him... or rather, more realistically, I'm telling you... that he has a long way to go because he's a shitheel and he's created and maintained a company that has a reputation for being shitty to work for.
Of course, and he may realize it, now.
Quote from: viper37 on November 06, 2021, 06:17:33 PM
Of course, and he may realize it, now.
The accuracy of that conclusion depends on how prevalent you think the capacity for honest self-critical evaluation is among corporate leaders.
The alternative is he is just saying whatever the PR guy is telling him to say until the immediate crisis blows over.
https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/more-shocking-activision-blizzard-revelations-bobby-kotick-once-told-an-assistant-he-was-going-to-have-her-killed/#comment-jump
QuoteMore shocking Activision Blizzard revelations: Bobby Kotick once told an assistant he was going to have her killed
A new report in the Wall Street Journal paints an unflattering picture of Activision-Blizzard
A new report in the Wall Street Journal details further incidents of harassment and sexual harassment at Activision-Blizzard, some dating back to 2006. The report, which Activision characterized as "inaccurate" in its own statement today, details Jen Oneal's short reign as Blizzard co-head, and why she left, and also includes allegations about CEO Bobby Kotick's own behaviour and how the company's leadership has historically responded to such issues.
Jen Oneal was promoted to co-head of Blizzard in August 2021, making her the first woman to lead one of Activision's business units. This was widely seen as a positive step for Blizzard amidst these grim allegations and ugliness. A few months later Oneal has come out as someone who has experienced this harassment herself, and announced her intention to leave: This is simply staggering.
In September 2021 Oneal emailed an Activision lawyer to announce her intent to resign, saying "it was clear that the company would never prioritize our people the right way", alleging she had been sexually harassed earlier in her career at Activision, and that she was paid less than her male co-head Mike Ybarra. "I have been tokenized, marginalized, and discriminated against," wrote Oneal.
It was announced on November 2 that Oneal is leaving Blizzard at the end of the year.
The main allegations about Kotick are that, in 2006, he left a threatening voicemail on an assistant's phone in which he threatened to have her killed. The assistant complained and Kotick settled the matter out-of-court. Activision spokesperson Helaine Klasky told the WSJ: "Mr. Kotick quickly apologized 16 years ago for the obviously hyperbolic and inappropriate voice mail, and he deeply regrets the exaggeration and tone in his voice mail to this day."
Another allegation is that Kotick personally intervened in the case of Dan Bunting, then co-head of Activision's Treyarch studio, a key part of the Call of Duty series. Bunting was accused by a female employee of sexually harassing her in 2017 after a night of drinking. Activision launched an internal investigation in 2019 when this was reported and recommended Bunting be fired but Kotick intervened to keep him. Bunting was instead given counseling and allowed to remain at Activision. However, after the WSJ began enquiring about this incident, Bunting has now left Activision.
The report goes on to detail rape allegations made against Javier Panameno, a Sledgehammer Games supervisor. The accuser's lawyer alleged he also had sexually harassed a second woman at the studio. The employee who accused him of the assaults reported that 2017 incident to the police: No charges were brought. The assaults were reported to Activision in 2018, and Panemeno was fired two months later.
The accuser's lawyer added that, while her client had not reported the incidents to Activision before leaving in November 2017, she had reported them to Sledgehammer's HR department while at the company.
The report also alleges that former Blizzard technology chief Ben Kilgore faced multiple allegations of sexual harassment over several years, and lied in an internal investigation about a relationship with a lower level employee. Kilgore was fired in 2018 with Kotick's approval.
Kotick has been subpoenaed by the Securities and Exchange Commission for an investigation into how the company handled misconduct and disclosed it (thus what Kotick knew and when, and what he told others such as the board, is very important).
Per the WSJ: "The board of directors was blindsided by the California lawsuit's allegations, including that an Activision employee killed herself after a photo of her vagina allegedly was circulated at a company party, according to people familiar with the board."
Activision's board said in a statement it had been "informed at all times with respect to the status of regulatory matters."
At the time an email was circulated around Activision-Blizzard staff by Frances Townsend, one of the company's female executives. Townsend would take an enormous amount of flak for this email, and Kotick backtracked the statement and called it "tone deaf."
Bobby Kotick drafted that statement, and directed Townsend to send it. Townsend had to apologise to a company women's group she led and was asked to resign, which she did. "Ms. Townsend should not be blamed for this mistake," said Activision spokeswoman Helaine Klasky.
These new revelations have to be viewed in the wider context of the allegations against Activision-Blizzard and various ongoing legal actions. The company is in court against the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, facing allegations that it routinely ignored complaints by female employees of harassment, sexual harassment and discrimination. The WSJ claims that since this action was launched in July Activision has received more than 500 HR complaints from current and former employees alleging "harassment, sexual assault, bullying, pay disparities and other issues."
Shortly after the WSJ article went live, Activision-Blizzard made public a statement that had earlier been circulated among employees. In it Kotick writes:
"There's an article today that paints an inaccurate and misleading view of our company, of me personally, and my leadership.
"I want to say two important things about this: First, we are incredibly fortunate to have the most talented people in our industry all so committed to constant improvement. And I share this commitment. The second thing I want to say is that anyone who doubts my conviction to be the most welcoming, inclusive workplace doesn't really appreciate how important this is to me."
Kotick's statement goes on to say Activision-Blizzard is "moving forward with a new zero tolerance policy for inappropriate behavior—and zero means zero. Any reprehensible conduct is simply unacceptable. Over the last few years our industry has had an uncomfortable spotlight that's been illuminating opportunities for us to change. And we must all, including me, embrace this need for change, so we can bring our very best selves to the very best place to work."
Activision-Blizzard's own, separate response to the story reiterated: "We are disappointed in the Wall Street Journal's report, which presents a misleading view of Activision Blizzard and our CEO. Instances of sexual misconduct that were brought to his attention were acted upon."
The studio remains locked in multiple court battles of harassment allegations dating back years. Kotick has always been a part of this story, inasmuch as it's about an institutional problem at the company he more-or-less built into an institution, but until this point he's been in the typical CEO position of issuing statements and promising change. This report drags his behaviour and decision-making into question, and does so in the context of serious harassment allegations and whether senior employees were ever given preferential treatment.
Activision-Blizzard continues to contest these allegations on multiple fronts but its own board will now be asking the obvious question: Kotick built Activision into what it is, but is he the man that can turn the page on this chapter in its history? We may get the answer to that sooner than you think.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 09, 2021, 10:20:28 AM
Quote from: viper37 on November 06, 2021, 06:17:33 PM
Of course, and he may realize it, now.
The accuracy of that conclusion depends on how prevalent you think the capacity for honest self-critical evaluation is among corporate leaders.
The alternative is he is just saying whatever the PR guy is telling him to say until the immediate crisis blows over.
I don't think he wants to change things. But I also don't think he has a choice to change things now.
That does seem to reinforce Jake's "shitheel" hypothesis.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-17/playstation-chief-criticizes-activision-response-to-allegations
QuotePlayStation Chief Criticizes Activision's Response to Crisis
Sony Group Corp.'s PlayStation Chief Jim Ryan admonished Activision Blizzard Inc. Wednesday for an inadequate response to allegations that Chief Executive Officer Bobby Kotick was aware of sexual misconduct and harassment claims at the game publisher for years and that he had mistreated women.
In an email to employees reviewed by Bloomberg, Ryan linked to the Wall Street Journal's Tuesday report. He wrote that he and his leadership were "disheartened and frankly stunned to read" that Activision "has not done enough to address a deep-seated culture of discrimination and harassment."
"We outreached to Activision immediately after the article was published to express our deep concern and to ask how they plan to address the claims made in the article," he wrote. "We do not believe their statements of response properly address the situation."
As one of the video game industry's biggest console manufacturers, Sony has long had a close relationship with Activision, which produces hits like Call of Duty and World of Warcraft. In addition to publishing most of its games on PlayStation consoles, Activision has worked with Sony on elaborate marketing deals. The last few entries in the Call of Duty series, including this year's Call of Duty: Vanguard, have featured exclusive modes and content for the PlayStation.
Activision is also under fire from its own employees. More than 100 walked out Tuesday and called for Kotick's resignation. The board issued a statement standing by Kotick. Activision shares fell 2.5% in New York on Wednesday afternoon.
This seems unusual. Normally, games companies don't comment much on the shit happening in other companies (though I assume there's contracts between ActiBlizz and Sony for their titles to be on PlayStation so that they felt they had to say something to disassociate themselves from this).
Activision Blizzard investigated Activision Blizzard and found Activision Blizzard didn't do anything wrong (https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/16/23171447/activision-blizzard-investigation-sec-filing)
Quote from: viper37 on June 20, 2022, 10:58:17 AMActivision Blizzard investigated Activision Blizzard and found Activision Blizzard didn't do anything wrong (https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/16/23171447/activision-blizzard-investigation-sec-filing)
QuoteOh, and it says the media made them look bad, too
Amid all the news on Overwatch 2 and Diablo Immortal, Activision Blizzard has filed a document with the US Securities and Exchange Commission in which it affirms that, after an internal investigation, it concluded its own board did not fail to act when presented with allegations of harassment.
"Contrary to many of the allegations, the board and its external advisors have determined that there is no evidence to suggest that Activision Blizzard senior executives ever intentionally ignored or attempted to downplay the instances of gender harassment that occurred and were reported," Activision Blizzard wrote in the filing.
The report does acknowledge there were problems within the company and that such a conclusion does little to address the concerns of those harmed. "Indeed, a single instance of someone feeling diminished at Activision Blizzard is one too many," it wrote. However, in a report from one of the consultants Activision Blizzard engaged to review harassment filings and the company's responses, the document said, "based on the volume of reports, the amount of misconduct reflected is comparatively low for a company the size of Activision Blizzard." It's kind of strange to say in one breath "one is too many" and then cite a consultant saying it could have been worse.
The filing continues with the programs the company has implemented to make restitution. It cites the addition of a new diversity and inclusion executive, a program designed to train and attract employees from underrepresented areas, and its $18 million compensation fund established by its settlement with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC. (For reference Activision Blizzard reported Call of Duty alone made the company $3 billion in 2020.)
But, in another example of "you could just not say that," the company took a swipe at the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) — which tried to block the EEOC settlement since it might release the company from the state's own case against it — and the media.
"It must be said that the company has been subject to an unrelenting barrage of media criticism that attempts to paint the entire company (and many innocent employees) with the stain of a very small portion of our employee population who engaged in bad behavior and were disciplined for it," the company wrote. "Much of this originated with the highly inflammatory, made-for-press allegations of the DFEH."
I guess when there's a new allegation cropping up almost daily with stories of stolen breast milk, alcohol-fueled "cube crawls," the now-infamous "Cosby suite," the fact that the CEO likely knew about all of it, the board's patent refusal to disavow said CEO despite employee objections, three employee walkouts, a strike and — let's not forget — the persistent instances of union busting for which there are at least two National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) complaints, it can get pretty unrelenting. It's also worth noting that while the DFEH filing did make the public aware about the "cube crawls" and the "Cosby suite," a lot of the other allegations brought forward were from independent reporting and Activision Blizzard's own current and former employees.
(https://c.tenor.com/pJnatjvzCsoAAAAM/casablanca-shocked.gif)
https://www.pcgamer.com/blizzard-developers-say-mandatory-return-to-office-policy-has-cost-us-some-amazing-people/
QuoteBlizzard developers say mandatory return-to-office policy has 'cost us some amazing people'
By Rick Lane published about 16 hours ago
Loss of talent is forcing producers to create "crisis maps" in development planning.
Activision Blizzard's mandatory return-to-office policy is causing an unnecessary loss of talent, to the point where it could affect development of major titles like World of Warcraft and Diablo 4, according to some Blizzard developers.
As reported by Kotaku, the company mandated that Activision employees return to the office for three days a week on April 10 this year, while Blizzard workers would be expected to follow suit on July 10. But several developers have spoken out about the ramifications this has had for employment.
"Being loud about it because I've lost yet *another* person this week," game producer Adam "Glaxigrav" tweeted in April. "Blizzard is losing amazing talent because someone in power doesn't listen to the game directors who make his products." Adam further stated that "We are creating crisis maps of what we can or cannot ship. THAT is the loss of capacity we're facing."
Other Blizzard employees added their own thoughts to Adam's tweet. "Forced RTO has cost us some amazing people and will continue to cost us more in the coming months", wrote senior designer Allison Steele. "It is a terrible, shortsighted, self-destructive policy that is only weakening our ability to deliver the kind of game we want to make." An example of the effect ABK's policy is having can be found in the replies to Steele's tweet. "I've received a job offer for Blizzard, and the move to Irvine was mandatory...which is a no-go for me" wrote Ubisoft AI programmer Stéphane Wantiez.
Kotaku also spoke to an employee on the Diablo 4 team on the condition of anonymity, who said they believed their days at Blizzard "are numbered", that none of their managers are on board with the return-to-office policy, and that several other people on the team had also given notice. The same employee also speculated that Blizzard is "tightening its belt right now and they want people to leave", which may affect Blizzard's plans for Diablo IV's post-release updates.
It's worth noting that the mandatory office attendance doesn't apply to ABK's executives. Recently hired execs like Chief Administrative Officer Brian Bulatao, and Chief Communications Officer Lulu Cheng Meservey, have full-time remote status.
Return to office policies have been a divisive subject in the games industry of late. Recently, a Unity manager was fired(opens in new tab) after referring to an exec's RTO solution as "out of touch" on Twitter. Meanwhile, other companies like Bungie (opens in new tab)and Respawn Entertainment have fully embraced remote-working.
The Unity firing mentioned comes after this tweet by her:
Quotea Unity exec just shared that they rent a secondary apt in SF to make it easier to be in the office- maybe we should all just do this to make it easier to RTO? This company has lost it. Completely out of touch.
Story: https://www.pcgamer.com/unity-manager-publicly-states-company-is-out-of-touch-is-fired-within-three-hours/
I've held the same job for 15 years. My current employer is now 4 days a week in the office. For the 1st time in 15 years I'm looking for a new job. It won't easy tho since that QA conditions are usually so bad I am not looking into another QA job.
While I agree with the Unity manager's opinion, I don't think there's anything unexpected in getting fired for using social media to call out your executive management's hypocrisy... at least if you're not protected by a collective agreement of some sort.
Quote from: Jacob on May 13, 2023, 10:24:49 PMWhile I agree with the Unity manager's opinion, I don't think there's anything unexpected in getting fired for using social media to call out your executive management's hypocrisy... at least if you're not protected by a collective agreement of some sort.
Agreed, and that's one reason why creative companies so often die after reaching a certain size; the very people most valuable to them are the people most likely to piss off the suits.
If everyone goes RTO the talent will eventual get reshuffled in the industry. I think WFH as it existed during Covid is a losing battle. For good or for bad.
Quote from: HVC on May 13, 2023, 10:40:55 PMIf everyone goes RTO the talent will eventual get reshuffled in the industry. I think WFH as it existed during Covid is a losing battle. For good or for bad.
I don't know much about the dynamics of the industry, but it doesn't immediately strike me as having impenetrably high barriers to entry. If that is so, some player or players are going to try to seize a recruiting advantage by offering more flexible work rules.
Yeah, I'm with Minsky here.
My studio is sticking with hybrid on an organizational scale - meaning we have some folks who are fully remote, some who are fully in office, and some who WFH/WIO in some combination. It works for us and is one data point potential candidates evaluate when deciding whether to accept an offer. I don't see any indications that this is going to change in the reasonable future.
My thoughts on the topic:
1. There are definitely attractive hires who will not consider in-office-required positions. Companies that insist on in-office will take a hit there.
2. At the same time, I'm sure large organizations (like Activision) can survive mandating in-office, but there'll be a price (and some advantages too).
3. There will definitely be organizations - small and large - who'll make "we are fully remote" a point of competitive advantage (meaning the people mentioned in point 1. will be able to find work).
4. A significant amount of game dev - especially at the AAA level - is done by distributed teams anyhow. If, say, 75% of your work is collaborating with staff at offices other than your own then the potential advantages of being in the office (vs working remotely) can be signficantly reduced.
5. Microsoft - which may still end up acquiring Activision (I think?) - allows remote work.
https://www.pcgamer.com/activision-blizzard-ceo-audaciously-claims-that-sexism-and-harassment-problems-were-made-up-by-an-aggressive-labor-movement-trying-to-destabilize-the-company/
QuoteActivision Blizzard CEO audaciously claims that sexism and harassment problems were made up by an 'aggressive labor movement' trying to 'destabilize the company'
Bobby Kotick said in a new interview that there was never any "systemic issue with harassment" at his company.
In a new and frankly embarrassing interview with Variety, Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick said there's actually never been a problem with "systemic" harassment at the company, and that reports of such things were mainly the result of unions trying to cause trouble.
2021 was a very bad year for Activision Blizzard. In July of that year, California's Department of Fair Employment and Housing—now known as the Civil Rights Department—filed a lawsuit alleging widespread discrimination and sexual harassment at the company; that was followed by other investigations, the departure of numerous high-level employees, apologies, fines, multiple additional lawsuits, and significant pushback from employees, who founded the ABK Workers Alliance to help drive unionization efforts and bring about other meaningful change at the company.
Despite all of that, Activision Blizzard's board of directors said in June 2022 that, after conducting its own internal investigation, there was no evidence of systemic gender-based misconduct at the studio. Now, Kotick is not only sticking to that story, he's taking it a step further by pointing the finger at labor organizers.
"We've had every possible form of investigation done," Kotick said. "And we did not have a systemic issue with harassment—ever. We didn't have any of what were mischaracterizations reported in the media. But what we did have was a very aggressive labor movement working hard to try and destabilize the company."
That's certainly audacious, but it fits a new approach Kotick is apparently taking: He told Variety that his mistake when the allegations about widespread misconduct at Activision Blizzard first came to light was not forcefully defending the company and himself against them. "I wouldn't be sitting here talking to you if any of what you read in the inflammatory narrative was truthful," he said.
Ironically, Kotick also insisted that he is not "anti-union," and in fact claimed that he's "the only Fortune 500 CEO who's a member of a union." That would be SAG-AFTRA, the union representing film and television actors, journalists, and other related industry professionals, which he joined in 2011 after being cast as Oakland A's co-owner Steve Schott in the Brad Pitt film Moneyball.
"If we have employees who want a union to represent them, and they believe that that union is going to be able to provide them with opportunities and enhancements to their work experience, I'm all for it," Kotick said. "I have a mother who was a teacher. I have no aversion to a union. What I do have an aversion to is a union that doesn't play by the rules."
The record would seem to indicate otherwise. In January 2022, for instance, Activision Blizzard refused to voluntarily recognize a union formed by QA testers at Call of Duty studio Raven Software; it wasn't until June of that year that it changed direction, not long after Microsoft—which is in negotiations to acquire Activision—said that it will not oppose the union if and when it takes over. In October 2022, the US National Labor Relations Board found that Activision Blizzard had withheld pay raises at Raven in retaliation for their roles in union organization; in January 2023, workers at Activision Blizzard studio Proletariat [ :lol: ] announced that they had dropped their request for a union vote because studio CEO Seth Sivak was "making a free and fair election impossible."
The Communications Workers of America, the labor organization that's been leading game industry unionization efforts, rejected Kotick's characterization. "Corporations choose to be disruptive when they run anti-union campaigns," CWA communications director Beth Allen told Variety. "Workers who join together to improve their workplaces intend to make constructive changes for the benefit of all. When employers voluntarily recognize unions and engage in good faith contract bargaining, it builds trust and strengthens companies."
Activision Blizzard has also previously acknowledged that misconduct at the company is in fact a problem. In March 2022, for instance, it paid $18 million to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against it by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Other lawsuits remain in motion, but Activision Blizzard has begun pushing back on that front too. In December 2022, it filed a lawsuit against California's CRD alleging that the agency had moved improperly slowly with the case and withheld information regarding its contact with media and unions.
In late 2021, PC Gamer spoke to three ex-Blizzard employees whose stories also disagree with Kotick's claims: They said among other things that inappropriate workplace behaviour, fuelled in part by an out-of-control drinking culture, was excused by management, and that women in their departments struggled to receive the same recognition as men.
Kotick also touched on Microsoft's in-the-works acquisition of Activision Blizzard, saying that "Microsoft is by far the best place for us to be" and that the deal makes particularly good sense in light of the rising cost of game development, especially "compensation for talent." But he added that the company will probably be okay if the acquisition is ultimately blocked: Activision Blizzard is currently sitting on roughly $12.6 billion in cash, and will gain another $3 billion on top of that from Microsoft as a penalty if the deal falls through.
Everybody hates Kotick and he has no credibility. How he has remained CEO is beyond me, sure he is shitty and terrible for both customers and employees and generally hated by anybody in the general public who is aware of his existence. But maybe he is good for investors somehow? Maybe taking companies with sterling reputations and making them a byword for shitty products and abusive labor practices during your entire tenure is good for business. I don't know. Capitalism makes no sense.
People who are obviously incompetent remain in high paying jobs at the tops of companies they are steering right into an iceberg remain in place for years. I never get it.
Because Warren still likes him.
QuoteActivision Blizzard has also previously acknowledged that misconduct at the company is in fact a problem. In March 2022, for instance, it paid $18 million to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against it by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Do settlements always mean that you have acknowledged what they claim you've done (I understand that settling looks like you've done something opticswise)? Or may it do so, and if so does this settlement?
IIRC they have made comments that acknowledge bad stuff (see upthread), my question is about settlements not about Activision Blizzard per se.
Quote from: The Brain on June 01, 2023, 11:00:51 AMQuoteActivision Blizzard has also previously acknowledged that misconduct at the company is in fact a problem. In March 2022, for instance, it paid $18 million to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against it by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Do settlements always mean that you have acknowledged what they claim you've done (I understand that settling looks like you've done something opticswise)? Or may it do so, and if so does this settlement?
IIRC they have made comments that acknowledge bad stuff (see upthread), my question is about settlements not about Activision Blizzard per se.
In civil litigation it's not uncommon to have a "no admission" settlement, where you pay but specifically state you don't admit to doing anything wrong.
Quote from: Barrister on June 01, 2023, 11:08:56 AMQuote from: The Brain on June 01, 2023, 11:00:51 AMQuoteActivision Blizzard has also previously acknowledged that misconduct at the company is in fact a problem. In March 2022, for instance, it paid $18 million to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against it by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Do settlements always mean that you have acknowledged what they claim you've done (I understand that settling looks like you've done something opticswise)? Or may it do so, and if so does this settlement?
IIRC they have made comments that acknowledge bad stuff (see upthread), my question is about settlements not about Activision Blizzard per se.
In civil litigation it's not uncommon to have a "no admission" settlement, where you pay but specifically state you don't admit to doing anything wrong.
Then I get the feeling that the article may have overstated things.
Quote from: The Brain on June 01, 2023, 11:53:08 AMThen I get the feeling that the article may have overstated things.
Sucker. Never believe that guy. Kotick is, at best, dishonest in presenting facts.
Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2023, 12:02:12 PMQuote from: The Brain on June 01, 2023, 11:53:08 AMThen I get the feeling that the article may have overstated things.
Sucker. Never believe that guy. Kotick is, at best, dishonest in presenting facts.
:unsure:
Quote from: The Brain on June 01, 2023, 11:00:51 AMQuoteActivision Blizzard has also previously acknowledged that misconduct at the company is in fact a problem. In March 2022, for instance, it paid $18 million to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against it by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Do settlements always mean that you have acknowledged what they claim you've done (I understand that settling looks like you've done something opticswise)? Or may it do so, and if so does this settlement?
IIRC they have made comments that acknowledge bad stuff (see upthread), my question is about settlements not about Activision Blizzard per se.
In the 2018 settlement, Activision Blizzard acknowledged that their procedures for investigating sexual misconduct didn't meet EEOC standards and agreed to revise them to conform to the law. The SEC is investigating whether or not their failure constituted a failure of their duty to their stockholders.
So, yeah, they have acknowledged at least procedural misconduct.
Epic is kicking out 800+ people and also get rid of Bandcamp which they bought in the ancient past of *checks notes* 2022.
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/epic-lay-off-830-people-thanks-to-unrealistic-metaverse-ambitions
QuoteEpic lay off 830 people thanks to "unrealistic" metaverse ambitions
"For a while now, we've been spending way more money than we earn", concedes CEO
Unreal Engine and Fortnite publisher Epic Games are making an absolutely enormous round of job cuts. As announced by billionaire founder and CEO Tim Sweeney in an email to staff today, the company will lay off approximately 830 people, totalling "around 16%" of their workforce, in order to achieve "financial sustainability" following a period of heavy investment and lower-than-hoped returns from Fortnite.
"For a while now, we've been spending way more money than we earn, investing in the next evolution of Epic and growing Fortnite as a metaverse-inspired ecosystem for creators," Sweeney wrote in the letter. "I had long been optimistic that we could power through this transition without layoffs, but in retrospect I see that this was unrealistic.
"While Fortnite is starting to grow again, the growth is driven primarily by creator content with significant revenue sharing, and this is a lower margin business than we had when Fortnite Battle Royale took off and began funding our expansion. Success with the creator ecosystem is a great achievement, but it means a major structural change to our economics.
"Epic folks around the world have been making ongoing efforts to reduce costs, including moving to net zero hiring and cutting operating spend on things like marketing and events. But we still ended up far short of financial sustainability. We concluded that layoffs are the only way, and that doing them now and on this scale will stabilize our finances."
Two-thirds of the layoffs are in teams "outside of core development", Sweeney added. The company "aren't cutting any core businesses," he wrote, "and are continuing to invest in games with Fortnite first-party development, the Fortnite creator ecosystem and economy, Rocket League and Fall Guys." Epic also hope to avoid delaying any upcoming releases, including the next season of Fortnite and Fortnite Chapter 5, though Sweeney cautioned that "some [products] may not ship when planned because they are under-resourced for the time being."
As part of their bid to cut costs, Epic will also divest from Bandcamp, the audio distribution platform they acquired in 2022, and are spinning off most of SuperAwesome, a company that builds parental consent management tools for developers making games for kids, which Epic acquired in 2020. Bandcamp will become part of music marketplace Songtradr, while SuperAwesome are going independent, though Epic will retain ownership of SuperAwesome's Kids Web Services.
Sweeney insisted in the letter that "Epic's prospects for the future are strong" thanks to Unreal Engine and Fortnite. He's equally bullish about the future of Project Liberty, Epic's grandiose legal soap opera battle with Apple and Google over whether or not Epic should be able to sell Fortnite stuff via their services. "We've been taking steps to reduce our legal expenses, but are continuing the fight against Apple and Google distribution monopolies and taxes, so the metaverse can thrive and bring opportunity to Epic and all other developers."
Best of luck to all Epic staffers facing the chop today.
Renaming this thread to general games industry stuff, btw.
I agree that Epic's future prospects are strong. They are are already the clear market leader when it comes to AAA game engines and their position is only getting stronger. Fortnite is still strong.
The Epic Game store is not going that well, as I understand it, and other initiatives have varying levels of success - but their core businesses are going strong.
Doesn't mean they can't fuck it up with poor executive strategy, but tightening up seems the right move from a corporate perspective - even if it sucks for the people who are laid off :(
Quote from: Jacob on September 29, 2023, 11:57:45 AMI agree that Epic's future prospects are strong. They are are already the clear market leader when it comes to AAA game engines and their position is only getting stronger. Fortnite is still strong.
The Epic Game store is not going that well, as I understand it, and other initiatives have varying levels of success - but their core businesses are going strong.
But that's just it - Epic has only ever had to really huge successes - the Unreal engine, and Fortnite.
I don't really see Unreal engine going away or being supplanted as long as they don't screw it up, but I do wonder how Fortnite can continue to be successful for year after year (though they've done a good job of it so far). Those two have given Epic such a firehouse of money that they've made numerous investments, but I don't know how well any of them have really paid off for them.
Yeah, I don't disagree with you.
Betting on the Metaverse was not a smart move, IMO. I project the Metaverse to not be a success.
Yeah it's obviously very bad for the people who've been laid off. But if I went to a company all hands or town hall and the boss was saying they're going big on the Metaverse, I'd start preparing my CV.
Well, I guess Lamplighters League didn't pan out for Harebrained Schemes/Paradox. :(
I guess HS's forte is more with licensed IPs with established fanbases (Shadowrun, Battletch)?
https://www.pcgamer.com/paradox-says-the-lamplighters-league-sales-were-a-big-disappointment-confirms-recent-layoffs-at-developer-harebrained-schemes/
QuoteParadox says The Lamplighters League sales were 'a big disappointment,' confirms recent layoffs at developer Harebrained Schemes
By Andy Chalk published about 13 hours ago
The layoffs at Harebrained Schemes actually occurred a few months before The Lamplighters League was released.
Paradox Interactive is taking a big financial hit on the turn-based tactics game The Lamplighters League, saying that sales of the game have been "a big disappointment." Paradox also confirmed that significant layoffs had been made at developer Harebrained Schemes, but clarified that those layoffs occurred in the summer, a few months before The Lamplighters League was released.
The Lamplighters League, a pulp-inspired tale of a secret society battling an army of the occult in the 1930s, looked potentially interesting when it was revealed in March, in part because it was being developed by Harebrained Schemes, the studio behind the Shadowrun RPGs and the excellent tactics game Battletech. But it never really seemed to gain much traction with gamers in the months leading up to its release in October, and the final product was not great: It's "an over-ambitious and technically flawed tactics game that can't live up to its more accomplished influences," we said in our 62% review.
Just one week after release, publisher Paradox Interactive has decided to throw in the towel, essentially saying that it's eating the cost of making the game as a loss to the tune of 248 million Swedish kronor—roughly $22.8 million. Paradox said the decision to write down the development expense was made after The Lamplighter League's release, when sales failed to reach expectations.
"The Lamplighters League is a fun game with many strengths," Paradox CEO Fredrik Wester said in a press release. "Even though we see cautiously positive player numbers in subscription services, the commercial reception has been too weak, which is frankly a big disappointment. Game projects are by their nature always risky, but at the end of the day we haven't performed at the level we should. It is painful but makes us more eager to roll up our sleeves and do better."
That assessment is borne out on Steam, where The Lamplighters League has a "mostly positive" user rating but dismally low player numbers. According to Steam Charts, the game's all-time peak concurrent player count was just 690, less than half of today's peak concurrent player count for Battletech, which was released in 2018. That doesn't tell the whole tale, as The Lamplighters League is also available on Xbox consoles, and the "cautiously positive player numbers in subscription services"—that is, Game Pass—would presumably give it a bump on that platform. But this quick reaction from Paradox is a pretty clear indication that no one is expecting a meaningful turnaround.
Paradox isn't washing its hands of The Lamplighters League completely at this point: In a statement provided to PC Gamer, a Paradox representative said it is "still working on our post-launch support plan," although no details on that plan were provided.
"The commercial performance of the game is at a level well outside of our expectations," the rep said. "As we have lowered our forecast for revenues, we are also obligated to write down the game's book value to match the lower revenue expectations. This is unusual for us. As a publicly traded company, we are obligated to issue a press release regarding a write-down of this size.
"At present we have no changes to the game's post-launch plan."
The failure of The Lamplighters League also brought to light reports of layoffs at Harebrained Schemes: One person claiming to be a former employee of the studio said on the Resetera forums that roughly 80% of the studio's employees had been laid off in July, and multiple former employees have said on social media that they had been let go by the studio in that time frame.
The Paradox rep declined to provide numbers but confirmed that layoffs had taken place prior to The Lamplighters League's release, saying that "Harebrained Schemes' staff was significantly reduced over the summer as the game entered its last phase of development and launch preparations."
Yikes.
They seem to not have marketed it at all. I only learned about its existence from a Youtuber I follow. The game's premise looked interesting, though not something I'd pay full price for.
Yes, seems it was seriously underhyped. I thought the premise was interesting, but honestly didn't follow it closely (I generally rarely do anymore, but normally you pick up a few things here and there in the run-up to a game).
Could be various reasons for that - they thought it was so niche, that hype would be wasted. Or that the game would not be a great final product. Or that they thought it would do well based on word of mouth or the reputation of the developer/publisher. But other games don't seem much different - sure, Cities Skylines II has its dev diaries, and some Youtubers have been able to try it out. And similar with Millennia. Maybe they got burnt on the Victoria 3 hype/reception?
I fear we may be entering the Hollywood phase of the gaming industry where it's either IP, indie, or bust.
Quote from: celedhring on October 12, 2023, 03:22:15 AMI fear we may be entering the Hollywood phase of the gaming industry where it's either IP, indie, or bust.
Other links in that chain beyond this subpar game published by paradox?
I saw it go onto GamePass on release; seemed like a bad sign for a non-MSFT controlled title.
https://www.pcgamer.com/harebrained-schemes-is-independent-again-paradox-parts-ways-with-the-studio-less-than-a-week-after-confirming-major-layoffs-earlier-this-year/
QuoteHarebrained Schemes is independent again: Paradox parts ways with the studio less than a week after confirming major layoffs earlier this year
Paradox and Harebrained say the split was a mutual decision.
Less than a week after saying that sales of turn-based tactics game The Lamplighters League were "a big disappointment" and confirming major layoffs at developer Harebrained Schemes, Paradox Interactive has announced that it has "decided to part ways" with the studio. Paradox said the split was a mutual decision, "stemming from each party's strategic and creative priorities," and that HBS will officially be independent again on January 1, 2024.
"Paradox has refocused its strategy towards its core niches within strategy and management games with endless qualities," Paradox COO Charlotta Nilsson said. "We and HBS' leadership have been discussing what would happen after the release of The Lamplighters League, but a new project or sequel in the same genre was not in line with our portfolio plans. Hence, we believe that a separation would be the best way forward."
The separation will leave Paradox with ownership of The Lamplighters League and "other games developed by the studio," although specifics about which games were not provided. Of particular interest on that front are Harebrained's best-known games, Shadowrun and Battletech: Both videogame series are based on tabletop games created by FASA, an RPG and tabletop gaming company co-founded by Jordan Weisman, who is also the co-founder of Harebrained Schemes.
It's something of a long and complicated history but the short version is that FASA launched a videogame studio called FASA Interactive in the mid '90s, which was eventually acquired by Microsoft. FASA Interactive was closed in 2007, but Microsoft licensed the rights to make new FASA-based videogames back to Weisman through his then-new, now-closed venture Smith and Tinker.
Those rights seemingly went with Weisman when he co-founded Harebrained Schemes in 2011 (the studio made three Shadowrun games and was deep into development of Battletech prior to its acquisition by Paradox) and the absence of those titles in the 'parting of ways' announcement makes me think that Harebrained Schemes may have retained them. HBS offered no insight into that possibility in its own comment on the split.
"Harebrained Schemes will support The Lamplighters League through the end of the year while we seek funding and partnerships for an independent future in 2024," studio operations manager Brian Poel said. "Our studio mission remains the same: to make games that challenge your mind and touch your heart."
What sort of resources Harebrained will have to pursue that mission remains to be seen. One person claiming to be a former employee of the studio said roughly 80% of its employees were laid off in June; Paradox didn't provide numbers in its confirmation but acknowledged that the headcount had been "significantly reduced." The one bright spot for the studio is that it has had consistent success with crowdfunding campaigns for its earlier project: Shadowrun Returns, Shadowrun: Hong Kong, and Battletech all far surpassed their goals on Kickstarter, and they all turned out to be pretty good games, too.
Not a huge surprise, but the comment about the portfolio seems weird, considering they have a Sims-like, a Civ-like, and a Factorio-like in the works. I would have thought turn based tactics would be more in their wheelhouse than at least Sims and Factorio. :hmm:
In other news: Bobby Kotick will leave ActiBlizz Dec 31st following the successful buyout by Microsoft.
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/10/ceo-bobby-kotick-will-leave-activision-blizzard-on-january-1-2024/
QuoteCEO Bobby Kotick will leave Activision Blizzard on January 1, 2024
Bobby Kotick, CEO of Activision Blizzard, emailed employees after news of Microsoft's successful $69 billion acquisition to say that he was "fully committed to helping with the transition" and that he would stay on as CEO through the end of 2023.
Kotick's statement left some ambiguity about his plans for 2024, but Bloomberg's Jason Schreier reports that on January 1, Kotick will depart. It's "a massive change for the video game industry," Schreier writes, which seems almost restrained, given Kotick's longevity and recent history. Several employees Schreier spoke to are "very excited for this deal to go through," specifically to see leadership change. :lol:
Kotick, who has led Activision for more than 30 years and orchestrated its merger with Blizzard, had considered stepping down in late 2021. Following a lawsuit from the state of California alleging a "frat boy culture" rife with pay disparity and sexual harassment, a Wall Street Journal report alleged that Kotick failed to act on hundreds of abuse allegations within the company and also kept the company's board of directors in the dark. Activision was also sued by its shareholders and pressured by state treasurers over its secrecy and responses regarding the California lawsuit. All of this led to an employee walkout and calls for Kotick's resignation.
Kotick stood fast through the flurry of criticism in 2021. In early 2022, Microsoft announced its intent to buy Activision, and the timing, according to reports from Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal, was not a coincidence. Kotick, according to Bloomberg, didn't want to sell but had little leverage with Activision's board to refuse an offer. Microsoft's purchase, at $95 per share, compared to the roughly $65 per share when the deal was announced, offered Kotick both a financial and narrative "graceful exit," according to the Journal's sources.
Kotick told VentureBeat after the Microsoft announcement that he didn't believe the harassment and mismanagement accusations hurt the company's stock. He cited delays in shipping Overwatch and Diablo titles, along with Call of Duty's sales performance.
While CEO of Activision, Kotick's termination without cause, or "Termination by employee for good reason following a change of control," guaranteed him nearly $300 million. Bloomberg reports that Kotick's windfall will likely be $375 million now that Microsoft's acquisition has gone through.
Phew, for a moment I was worried that Bobby would not be adequately compensated at the end of his tenure. :)
Must have been some real boardroom bollockings over Lamplighters.
Shame, it looks potentially interesting, but so many other good games at the moment.
Why didn't they market the game?
Quote from: The Brain on October 18, 2023, 08:03:06 AMWhy didn't they market the game?
Maybe because it was shit?
In the Paradoxplaza subreddit there's a thread about this: https://www.reddit.com/r/paradoxplaza/comments/17a59f6/harebrained_schemes_and_paradox_interactive_to/
Someone posted screenshots of Discord messages from supposedly a former HBS employee (so impossible to verify) posting this:
(https://i.imgur.com/tUm2khL.png)
Quote from: The Brain on October 18, 2023, 08:03:06 AMWhy didn't they market the game?
Typically the rough calculation is something like:
- If we spent X to develop the game.
- And if we spend Y to market the game (note that Y can easily be equal to or more than X, depending on dev costs)
- Based on sales projections, will revenue be equal to or greater than X+Y+[required margin]?
- If no, then games can get cancelled with little mercy
There's also the factor of slots on the calendar and resources within the publisher organization. Typically they only have bandwidth / staffing for a given number of releases a year and DLC / missed deadlines / market conditions can cause a release to be pushed back, having knock-on effects on lower priority releases.
That's the general case.
For Paradox specifically I've read that there's been a change in executive management (bringing back earlier executives), and that the incoming leadership wants to refocus on Paradox' core business - grand strategy games. Which Lamplighter is not.
I've seen comments that it's not so much grand strategy games, necessarily, but "endless" games, i.e. sandboxes with a potentially long life span, like EU4, HOI4 , Cities Skylines, and also now Millennia, Life by You, and their Factorio-like.
I don't get the discord message. It says that the former President was ousted "and replaced by a status quo techbro board member." But the replacement was Fredrik, who owns the company. This isn't the replacement of one outside CEO by another outside CEO, it is the principal owner retaking over management. That would also explain the tone of the company meeting.
Quote from: garbon on October 18, 2023, 08:46:58 AMQuote from: The Brain on October 18, 2023, 08:03:06 AMWhy didn't they market the game?
Maybe because it was shit?
Apparently it wasn't though, according to the reviews I've seen it's pretty good.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 18, 2023, 10:46:53 AMI don't get the discord message. It says that the former President was ousted "and replaced by a status quo techbro board member." But the replacement was Fredrik, who owns the company. This isn't the replacement of one outside CEO by another outside CEO, it is the principal owner retaking over management. That would also explain the tone of the company meeting.
Yes, it's one of the reasons why I take the comments with a grain of salt. The way I see it is Fred handed over to a new person who wanted to diversify the publishing portfolio with very mixed success and Fred took back over.
The powers that be fired The Escapist editor in chief Nick Calandra on Nov 6th.
In response all video creators of The Escapist, including Yahtzee and the crew of their D&D campaign "Adventure is Nigh" resigned and they're striking out on their own. It also means that Zero Punctuation is coming to an end after 16 years. :o --- and doing I guess the same under his "Fully Ramblomatic" brand. :P
https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-67348861
Yahtzee/Nick talk about it here: https://youtu.be/KG2ttRgc5Zk
Always wondered how The Escapist made their money.
Quote from: Syt on October 12, 2023, 02:32:56 AMWell, I guess Lamplighters League didn't pan out for Harebrained Schemes/Paradox. :(
Yikes.
This is the first time I'd heard of this game and '30s occult stuff is right up my alley.
In a few weeks, the industry's auto-fellatio that is the Game Awards take place.
The nominees are online: https://thegameawards.com/nominees
Unsurprisingly, BG3 is nominated in almost every category that is applicable.
(https://i.postimg.cc/K8BS14KR/image.png)
The only one coming close is the new Zelda game with 5 nominations.
Meanwhile, and maybe surprisingly ...
(https://i.postimg.cc/QtMyJMMg/image.png)
Even Cyberpunk 2077 has 4 nominations (best narrative, best performance (Idriss Elba), best ongoing, best community support).
I sure hope Bethesda takes note for TES6.
I mean I think that's fair. Starfield's sum of its parts is definitely very good and enjoyable but none of the individual parts stand out in this day and age. Like, really, none of the individual features of functionalities (except maybe number of quests, IDK) have improved on their area, they are all at best very good and often mediocre. The total result is a very nice and enjoyable game IMHO but not exactly rewards material. BG3 is a much more limits-extending products. No wonder it got furious complaints from other game devs.
I guess this article summarizes it somewhat. That it's mostly "all right" but not a special standout as Bethesda games used to be. https://www.pcgamer.com/starfields-down-to-mixed-reviews-on-steam-while-the-community-laments-the-magic-is-just-missing-from-starfield/
IMO none of their games have had the staying power of Skyrim and all later attempts may have been making more money, but only Skyrim has stayed a popular touchstone.
Favorite steam review comment of the season so far:
"I know Blizzard gets a lot of hate, but personally, I don't think it gets enough."
:lol:
Quote from: Syt on November 20, 2023, 08:29:16 AMI sure hope Bethesda takes note for TES6.
Part of me kind of hopes they don't make it. Every TES game since Morrowind has gotten a little worse. Just IMO.
By TES6 there will probably be no skills or stats, you will just be a superhero, and the plot will just be 'WOW THE DARK BROTHERHOOD IS COOL!!!11"
But we will see.
Studios are firing people left and right (if not outright closing, Embracer being a main culprit there, it seems), but here's a big one that might alter the landscape on the whole:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-67688720
QuoteGoogle loses monopoly case to Fortnite maker Epic Games
The maker of popular video game Fortnite has won a US court battle against Google, with a jury deciding that the search giant had operated an illegal monopoly.
Epic Games sued Google in 2020, accusing it of unlawfully making its app store dominant over rivals.
Hundreds of millions of people use the store to install apps for smartphones powered by Google's Android software.
Google has said it would challenge the outcome.
"Android and Google Play provide more choice and openness than any other major mobile platform," Wilson White, vice-president of government affairs and public policy at Google, said.
"The trial made clear that we compete fiercely with Apple and its App Store, as well as app stores on Android devices and gaming consoles," he added.
"We will continue to defend the Android business model and remain deeply committed to our users, partners, and the broader Android ecosystem."
Epic Chief Executive Tim Sweeney said that work on remedies would start in January.
"Victory over Google! After four weeks of detailed court testimony, the California jury found against the Google Play monopoly on all counts," Epic Chief Executive Tim Sweeney wrote in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter.
The lawyers for the two companies made their final arguments on Monday in the trial that lasted more than a month.
Jurors found in favour of Epic on all counts unanimously, according to a court filing.
The case also challenged transaction fees of up to 30% that Google imposes on Android app developers, and how the tech giant ties together its Play Store and billing service, which means developers must use both to have their apps in the store.
The ruling therefore could give developers more agency over how their apps are distributed and how they make money from them.
Google maintains that its commissions are competitive for the industry, and that it provides added bonuses like reach, transaction security and protections against malware.
But if the ruling stands, Google may have to allow more app stores onto Android-powered devices and will lose revenue it makes from any in-app purchases.
Google Play Store is one of the world's largest app stores and competes directly with Apple's App Store.
Android powers roughly 70% of smartphones globally, and according to Epic games, more than 95% of Android apps are distributed through the Play Store.
The store is not as profitable for the tech giant as its profitable search business, but the platform gives Google access to billions of mobile phones and tablets.
Epic said in the lawsuit that Google "suppresses innovation and choice" through a "web of secretive, anti-competitive agreements".
"Over the course of the trial we saw evidence that Google was willing to pay billions of dollars to stifle alternative app stores by paying developers to abandon their own store efforts and direct distribution plans, and offering highly lucrative agreements with device manufacturers in exchange for excluding competing app stores," Epic games said in a statement after the verdict.
Google had countersued for damages against Epic for allegedly violating the company's developer agreement.
The tech giant has faced a number of anti-trust cases, settling similar claims from dating app Match before the Epic trial started.
Epic filed a similar antitrust case against Apple in 2020, but a US judge largely ruled in favour of Apple in 2021.
"The evidence presented in this case demonstrates the urgent need for legislation and regulations that address Apple and Google strangleholds over smartphones," Epic Games said in its statement.
Oh, and there was some drama around the game "The Day Before" - never heard of the title, but apparently it was announced as open world zombie survival game a few years ago with art that immediately drew positive attention. Game launched less than a week ago, turned out to be far from what was promised (essentially a watered down, worse version of The Division with shitty gameplay and bad enemy AI), garnering an "overwhelmingly negative" score on Steam and - according to some social media posts from supposedly devs on Russian social media - almost half of players refunded the game. The devs announced yesterday that they'll close the studio because of the financial failure. Also, the game is now delisted from Steam. Debate seems to be ongoing whether it was a developer biting off more than they could chew, or one mor entry in a series of MMO scams that turn out to be glorifed asset flips where devs grab as much money as they can via the hype machine and then bolt.
Worth noting there's about three separate challenges to pretty core bits of Google's business underway at the minute (and some of them started under Trump's DoJ and have continued under Biden's).
I feel like seeing them split up or voluntarily shutting down whole wings of their business (like advertising) is not beyond the realm of possiblilities any more.
Tbh, I'm not quite clear why judges would rule in favor of Apple in one case (with the Apple platform generally being more restrictive than Android), but against Google.
Quote from: Syt on December 12, 2023, 02:22:08 AMTbh, I'm not quite clear why judges would rule in favor of Apple in one case (with the Apple platform generally being more restrictive than Android), but against Google.
It's a jury - Apple was a judge only.
I'm not sure on the details of this case - but the wider actions against Google's Play store is actually that it has a huge range of contractual relationships in order to preference certain vendors/block others. So it's not a walled garden like Apple, but it's all rigged.
Edit: That's the argument certainly in the Chrome case. But there's a case against Chrome, the Epic case against Play Store and a case against Google's digital advertising business (through search). As I say those seem to me, as an outsider, like Google's three core businesses :ph34r:
Splitting up their core businesses can't be good for shareholder value. All hail the reign of Bing?
I mean, I hate Epic and as mega-corps go I don't hate Google as much as others....
But this does sound positive.
Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2023, 07:46:49 PMQuote from: Syt on November 20, 2023, 08:29:16 AMI sure hope Bethesda takes note for TES6.
Part of me kind of hopes they don't make it. Every TES game since Morrowind has gotten a little worse. Just IMO.
Skyrim>Oblivion IMO.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 12, 2023, 01:56:14 AMI feel like seeing them split up or voluntarily shutting down whole wings of their business (like advertising) is not beyond the realm of possiblilities any more.
That would be surprising. Advertising is the only thing they can actually do for a long period of time & how they measure success of the other business endeavours.
Quote from: Syt on December 12, 2023, 02:22:08 AMTbh, I'm not quite clear why judges would rule in favor of Apple in one case (with the Apple platform generally being more restrictive than Android), but against Google.
Although Google filed legal motions to dispose of the case pre-trial, those motions appear to have been dropped - perhaps because Google was pursuing counterclaims against Epic and was willing to go to trial. Google did move for judgment as a matter of law at trial and its argument relied heavily on the 2023 appeal's court decision in the Epic v. Apple case. Assuming the district judge does not disturb the verdict, Google may appeal and ask the court of appeals to overturn the verdict as contrary to law, relying on the Apple precedent.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 12, 2023, 09:28:13 AMQuote from: Valmy on December 08, 2023, 07:46:49 PMQuote from: Syt on November 20, 2023, 08:29:16 AMI sure hope Bethesda takes note for TES6.
Part of me kind of hopes they don't make it. Every TES game since Morrowind has gotten a little worse. Just IMO.
Skyrim>Oblivion IMO.
Oblivion did have the most evil and perverse leveling system in gaming history.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 12, 2023, 10:01:13 AMQuote from: Syt on December 12, 2023, 02:22:08 AMTbh, I'm not quite clear why judges would rule in favor of Apple in one case (with the Apple platform generally being more restrictive than Android), but against Google.
Although Google filed legal motions to dispose of the case pre-trial, those motions appear to have been dropped - perhaps because Google was pursuing counterclaims against Epic and was willing to go to trial. Google did move for judgment as a matter of law at trial and its argument relied heavily on the 2023 appeal's court decision in the Epic v. Apple case. Assuming the district judge does not disturb the verdict, Google may appeal and ask the court of appeals to overturn the verdict as contrary to law, relying on the Apple precedent.
Thanks for the info. :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 12, 2023, 09:28:13 AMQuote from: Valmy on December 08, 2023, 07:46:49 PMQuote from: Syt on November 20, 2023, 08:29:16 AMI sure hope Bethesda takes note for TES6.
Part of me kind of hopes they don't make it. Every TES game since Morrowind has gotten a little worse. Just IMO.
Skyrim>Oblivion IMO.
The perception of the new game being worse is, IMO, created by the fact that we were going from fully-modded older games to unmodded newer games. Modded Skyrim is better than Oblivion and modded Oblivion is better than Morrowind (in fact, you can play Morrowinfd in modded Oblivion).
Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2023, 10:07:06 AMOblivion did have the most evil and perverse leveling system in gaming history.
Mods took care of that. I agree that, while it lasted, it was ridiculously funny for bandits in 2,000 gold piece armor trying to rob the PC of his 20 gold pieces.
Do you think modded Starfield will surpass modded Skyrim?
My perception is that industry wide, there's a strong push to harness and monetize UGC.
My hunch is that it will suck the soul out of the modding scene, generally speaking.
Quote from: Jacob on December 12, 2023, 01:49:29 PMDo you think modded Starfield will surpass modded Skyrim?
I'm not seeing that now, because Starfield's non-quest gameplay just isn't compelling. There aren't all the curated open world encounters you get with Skyrim. Maybe there will be enough quest mods to make up for it, though. It would also help if someone could make the outpost system seem worth bothering, and/or piracy a profitable and interesting activity.
Quote from: grumbler on December 12, 2023, 01:35:34 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on December 12, 2023, 09:28:13 AMQuote from: Valmy on December 08, 2023, 07:46:49 PMQuote from: Syt on November 20, 2023, 08:29:16 AMI sure hope Bethesda takes note for TES6.
Part of me kind of hopes they don't make it. Every TES game since Morrowind has gotten a little worse. Just IMO.
Skyrim>Oblivion IMO.
The perception of the new game being worse is, IMO, created by the fact that we were going from fully-modded older games to unmodded newer games. Modded Skyrim is better than Oblivion and modded Oblivion is better than Morrowind (in fact, you can play Morrowinfd in modded Oblivion).
Maybe. But I played both unmodded.
I played them for about a hundred hours each and eventually lost interest. Never go to the point of using the mods.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 12, 2023, 09:28:13 AMQuote from: Valmy on December 08, 2023, 07:46:49 PMQuote from: Syt on November 20, 2023, 08:29:16 AMI sure hope Bethesda takes note for TES6.
Part of me kind of hopes they don't make it. Every TES game since Morrowind has gotten a little worse. Just IMO.
Skyrim>Oblivion IMO.
>Morrowind.
Though I will say I've played skyrim a lot less than oblivion despite it being objectively better. I guess it's just less good for it's time.
Quote from: grumbler on December 12, 2023, 01:38:38 PMMods took care of that. I agree that, while it lasted, it was ridiculously funny for bandits in 2,000 gold piece armor trying to rob the PC of his 20 gold pieces.
You can't get rich without sweating the little stuff.
Quote from: Syt on December 12, 2023, 11:30:41 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on December 12, 2023, 10:01:13 AMQuote from: Syt on December 12, 2023, 02:22:08 AMTbh, I'm not quite clear why judges would rule in favor of Apple in one case (with the Apple platform generally being more restrictive than Android), but against Google.
Although Google filed legal motions to dispose of the case pre-trial, those motions appear to have been dropped - perhaps because Google was pursuing counterclaims against Epic and was willing to go to trial. Google did move for judgment as a matter of law at trial and its argument relied heavily on the 2023 appeal's court decision in the Epic v. Apple case. Assuming the district judge does not disturb the verdict, Google may appeal and ask the court of appeals to overturn the verdict as contrary to law, relying on the Apple precedent.
Thanks for the info. :)
To be clear - Google is in a much tougher spot than Apple was on appeal. The Apple case was a bench trial and the judge ruled for Apple. So the appeals court was just deciding if the judge's decision for Apple was justifiable. Here, a jury gave a verdict for Epic, which means google faces the uphill battle of showing that the verdict is totally inconsistent with the law. Even though it's the same appeals court in both cases, they could reach different results because of the deference given to jury findings.
Quote from: Jacob on December 12, 2023, 01:51:09 PMMy perception is that industry wide, there's a strong push to harness and monetize UGC.
My hunch is that it will suck the soul out of the modding scene, generally speaking.
Classic example of penny wise, pound foolish, and TES is the perfect case. They are still earning money selling Super-Duper Mega Complete versions of Skyrim (with hyper-augmentable ultra reality) a decade down the line because the UGC keeps the game fresh. Kill the scene, kill the golden goose. Free labor is a gift in itself.
Quote from: Josquius on December 12, 2023, 02:25:55 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on December 12, 2023, 09:28:13 AMQuote from: Valmy on December 08, 2023, 07:46:49 PMQuote from: Syt on November 20, 2023, 08:29:16 AMI sure hope Bethesda takes note for TES6.
Part of me kind of hopes they don't make it. Every TES game since Morrowind has gotten a little worse. Just IMO.
Skyrim>Oblivion IMO.
>Morrowind.
Though I will say I've played skyrim a lot less than oblivion despite it being objectively better. I guess it's just less good for it's time.
Well good for you.
Morrowind had lots of interesting systems and an interesting setting and an interesting plot. Like I actually was curious about Dagoth Ur and actually interested in how the game played and actually wanted to at some point be tough enough to beat that big mean Daedra. And it was cool when I finally could. And you could do cool things like fly around and stuff (and fight cliff racers...).
I won the main game and Tribunal and eventually got bored on the island expansion where there were just too many monsters. Like at one point I entered a tunnel and there was a huge long line of monsters just waiting their turn to get killed by me. At that point I was like "ok I think I am done here".
But, you know, it was a good, interesting, and memorable time.
Oblivion had a lot of the same systems, which I liked, but seemed very determined to make them worse. Level scaling the monsters was so fucking stupid and lame and provided one of many incentives to just not level. It also meant if you leveled a certain way, you were fucked completely. Why did they do that? And then they limited the number of times you can train per level...why the fuck? Just because they took a really interesting leveling system from Morrowind and made it incredibly horrid and took the decent combat and made it very spongey and broken and then wanted to make sure you had to engage with it as much as possible.
Then you had the Daedra which seemed very intriguing in Morrowind and basically made it so "hey these guys are basically demons and Oblivion is basically hell" boring. I understand they fixed this a bit in the shivering Isles expansion but I never got that far. Then they took the jungle romans we were promised in Morrowind and just made Cyrodiil really boring and lame. The plot of Morrowind, which was intriguing and had all these interesting themes about tradition vs modernism, imperialism, religion, propaganda, and probably a few more I am forgetting. The plot of Oblivion has a cult which is evil for no reason, and a big bad who is just a big demon guy, blah blah.
I mean I gave it a shot. I played the shit out of it. But it just never got better and eventually I got bored and quit playing. Never actually finished the main plot.
Oh and the Dark Brotherhood, which the game clearly thought was the COOLEST SHIT EVER. Meh.
Skyrim did fix a lot of Oblivion's issues but did so by mostly just removing the system. So you barely had anything left. Everything was so...fucking...streamlined and dull. And the things that did seem cool at first would end up being kind of cringy and lame. The Civil War was almost comically silly. I did finish that and won it for the Imperials. I just remember thinking "wow that was bad". The Dragons were so lame and so easy to kill and because I knew a little bit about the Dragons in the lore of the series I felt kind of bad about that. And the magic system, which was so cool in Morrowind you could make your own spells and do interesting things, and in Skyrim it is so stripped down and lame and pathetic. If you try to play a mage character in Skyrim you are in for a bad time. The game hates you. And like the Civil War side plot the game disappointed me constantly with the main plot, everything that seemed kind of cool would turn out to be stupid. Oh and fuck that Vampire expansion. Laughable. I don't think I am some kind of snob, I played Dragon Age II a game most people felt was disappointing and I enjoyed it despite its flaws. I gave this game a chance. It just never lived up to its promises.
So yeah I played the shit out of it, always with the promise of something cool about to happen and then never happening.
But I understand that really both Oblivion and Skyrim are really just platforms for player made content and mods and that is great. Minecraft and Roblox are pretty fun according to my kids. I don't have time for that though. If I had finished either Oblivion or Skyrim and wanted to play more I would have tried out the mods, but I never got that far.
And based on what I understand about Fallout 3, Fallout 4, Fallout 76, and Starfield Bethesda is not getting better with the issues I did not like about Oblivion and Skyrim. They are getting worse.
My basic interest in the Elder Scrolls series and the fun I remember having with Morrowind will probably compel me to at least give ES 6 a chance. So we'll see. Maybe they will do something interesting.
Or maybe I won't, I never felt any desire to play ES Online. But a MMORPG is a whole different level of commitment than putting in a few hundred hours in a single player game.
Yes, I agree on your take, Minsky.
Rather than trying to add a transaction cost on every mod and then taking a slice, they should upgrade the base game in a way that doesn't undermine mods. I'd happily pay full game price for a new release of Skyrim if it upgraded my game in a significant way while leaving my mods (mostly) intact.
Of course, that requires more investment - and risk taking - than "let's try to turn the modding community into a source of rents for us."
Quote from: Jacob on December 12, 2023, 03:24:33 PMthan "let's try to turn the modding community into a source of rents for us."
But...but...shareholder value
Quote from: Jacob on December 12, 2023, 01:51:09 PMMy perception is that industry wide, there's a strong push to harness and monetize UGC.
My hunch is that it will suck the soul out of the modding scene, generally speaking.
Definitely something I'm worried about. I'm disappointed there was so much push back on the monetization for mods. I think if it could have been set up as another potential revenue stream while letting the modders choose if they want to charge (and the company only getting a cut if the modder asked for money), companies would be more receptive to keeping their architectures open.
Personally I like high quality mods, and seeing what some can do I'd like to give them money directly through the mod infrastructure rather than the Patreon end around.
I don't know if monetization of mods is going to result in higher quality mods, though.
Will there be an increase in shovelware mods as hucksters chase perceived easy money by putting crap out for unsuspecting fools to buy?
Will we see an increase in people stealing content from other mod authors, pretending it's theirs so they can get free money?
There are large mods that are the result of collaboration between many people pursuing a common goal? How will the potential of revenue influence people's willingness to contribute to mods where they're not the beneficiary?
Similarly, there are mods that have been handed from one author to another over time as individuals burn out but others step up to carry the torch. If there's money on the line, how willing will authors be to pick up their work to continue it?
If you have to pay for mods, how willing will people be to download weird or interesting new mods for a laugh or just to try them out? Lowering uptake in general will potnetially impact the range of mods being made.
What about compatibility? If I pay for a mod and it doesn't play nice with other mods (that I've also paid for), I'll be pretty disappointed - definitely more so than if it was something I downloaded for free. What if the mod is buggy, then what? However this is handled will impact the ecosystem.
I too like high quality mods, and I'm not against rewarding the people who make them. The question is, will monetizing mods incentivize making more of them? All the high quality mods we have now (and the low quality ones too) were made without explicit monetization as an incentive. Is it reasonable to expect that monetizing is going to result in an increase or a decrease?
Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2023, 03:18:23 PMQuote from: Josquius on December 12, 2023, 02:25:55 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on December 12, 2023, 09:28:13 AMQuote from: Valmy on December 08, 2023, 07:46:49 PMQuote from: Syt on November 20, 2023, 08:29:16 AMI sure hope Bethesda takes note for TES6.
Part of me kind of hopes they don't make it. Every TES game since Morrowind has gotten a little worse. Just IMO.
Skyrim>Oblivion IMO.
>Morrowind.
Though I will say I've played skyrim a lot less than oblivion despite it being objectively better. I guess it's just less good for it's time.
Well good for you.
Morrowind had lots of interesting systems and an interesting setting and an interesting plot. Like I actually was curious about Dagoth Ur and actually interested in how the game played and actually wanted to at some point be tough enough to beat that big mean Daedra. And it was cool when I finally could. And you could do cool things like fly around and stuff (and fight cliff racers...).
I won the main game and Tribunal and eventually got bored on the island expansion where there were just too many monsters. Like at one point I entered a tunnel and there was a huge long line of monsters just waiting their turn to get killed by me. At that point I was like "ok I think I am done here".
But, you know, it was a good, interesting, and memorable time.
Oblivion had a lot of the same systems, which I liked, but seemed very determined to make them worse. Level scaling the monsters was so fucking stupid and lame and provided one of many incentives to just not level. It also meant if you leveled a certain way, you were fucked completely. Why did they do that? And then they limited the number of times you can train per level...why the fuck? Just because they took a really interesting leveling system from Morrowind and made it incredibly horrid and took the decent combat and made it very spongey and broken and then wanted to make sure you had to engage with it as much as possible.
Then you had the Daedra which seemed very intriguing in Morrowind and basically made it so "hey these guys are basically demons and Oblivion is basically hell" boring. I understand they fixed this a bit in the shivering Isles expansion but I never got that far. Then they took the jungle romans we were promised in Morrowind and just made Cyrodiil really boring and lame. The plot of Morrowind, which was intriguing and had all these interesting themes about tradition vs modernism, imperialism, religion, propaganda, and probably a few more I am forgetting. The plot of Oblivion has a cult which is evil for no reason, and a big bad who is just a big demon guy, blah blah.
I mean I gave it a shot. I played the shit out of it. But it just never got better and eventually I got bored and quit playing. Never actually finished the main plot.
Oh and the Dark Brotherhood, which the game clearly thought was the COOLEST SHIT EVER. Meh.
Skyrim did fix a lot of Oblivion's issues but did so by mostly just removing the system. So you barely had anything left. Everything was so...fucking...streamlined and dull. And the things that did seem cool at first would end up being kind of cringy and lame. The Civil War was almost comically silly. I did finish that and won it for the Imperials. I just remember thinking "wow that was bad". The Dragons were so lame and so easy to kill and because I knew a little bit about the Dragons in the lore of the series I felt kind of bad about that. And the magic system, which was so cool in Morrowind you could make your own spells and do interesting things, and in Skyrim it is so stripped down and lame and pathetic. If you try to play a mage character in Skyrim you are in for a bad time. The game hates you. And like the Civil War side plot the game disappointed me constantly with the main plot, everything that seemed kind of cool would turn out to be stupid. Oh and fuck that Vampire expansion. Laughable. I don't think I am some kind of snob, I played Dragon Age II a game most people felt was disappointing and I enjoyed it despite its flaws. I gave this game a chance. It just never lived up to its promises.
So yeah I played the shit out of it, always with the promise of something cool about to happen and then never happening.
But I understand that really both Oblivion and Skyrim are really just platforms for player made content and mods and that is great. Minecraft and Roblox are pretty fun according to my kids. I don't have time for that though. If I had finished either Oblivion or Skyrim and wanted to play more I would have tried out the mods, but I never got that far.
And based on what I understand about Fallout 3, Fallout 4, Fallout 76, and Starfield Bethesda is not getting better with the issues I did not like about Oblivion and Skyrim. They are getting worse.
My basic interest in the Elder Scrolls series and the fun I remember having with Morrowind will probably compel me to at least give ES 6 a chance. So we'll see. Maybe they will do something interesting.
Or maybe I won't, I never felt any desire to play ES Online. But a MMORPG is a whole different level of commitment than putting in a few hundred hours in a single player game.
I know Morrowind has its fans and I've heard this argument of it being a special and unique world vs. Oblivion's generic fantasy many times, but it just doesn't sit with me.
1: Oblivion being a generic fantasy world is a GOOD thing. Generic fantasy is something many people (like me) grew up with. We know its rules and standards. In Oblivion you had an amazing immersive version of these. There was nothing like it. An open world fantasy setting. This was brilliant.
Morrowind being different and special...maybe that would be good now after we've had so many generic fantasy open worlds but at its time it just didn't add anything.
2: No matter how great Morrowinds story may have been (I really don't know), I wonder how many people are like me and just never saw it. The gameplay is just...rubbish. Even for its time I'd perhaps say- though I think I played it a few years later. The whole right click menu, left click action, in an action game.... I just couldn't get on with it.
I tried it several times but never got more than an hour or two of play, maybe attempting a basic initial quest or two.
Oblivion was by no means perfect. The level scaling was terrible. The jank was strong. Way too many generic copy and pastola assets and quests.
I remember when I was very young at a cousins' house playing a demo of a game that I now believe to have been Dagerfall and finding it awesome. I wish I had played it when it was fresh. I'd have loved it. But looking at TES these days anything pre Oblivion (at least? Not tried Oblivion lately...) is just too dated to enjoy.
When Open Morrowind came out, I checked out Morrowind again for the first time in many years. It was a nice nostalgia trip, but also a reminder of how far we have come since its release. Combat was ridiculous, character leveling was ludicrous, guild quests were boring, and the looks have not aged well.
For anyone interested in a nostalgia trip, Open Morrowind does get rid of the bugginess/crashiness of the original game.
I really liked Skyrim. I'm glad they ditched the awful leveling system. I liked Morrowind. alright, but was disappointed by the AI. The way the monsters often just paced back and forth. Arx Fatalis came out the same time and I liked it better. Oblivion was mediocre. I hated the speech system and the lock picking. Graphically it was very impressive, but yeah, generic.
Quote from: Jacob on December 12, 2023, 05:33:05 PMI don't know if monetization of mods is going to result in higher quality mods, though.
Will there be an increase in shovelware mods as hucksters chase perceived easy money by putting crap out for unsuspecting fools to buy?
Will we see an increase in people stealing content from other mod authors, pretending it's theirs so they can get free money?
These two scenarios are much more likely to happen.
It's already happening with Patreon, where some mod authors sometime try to steal work from someone else and put it behind a paywall.
Or just a DLSS mod for Starfield that gets put behind a Patreon and the author asks for money after every game patch.
I'm not against the concept of paid mods, but it should be up to the mod author to decide if he wants money or not, and that's why like the donation system on NexusMods. Granted, they won't survive on that. Nor on the advertising revenue cut. But it might help the more popular mods.
I'm more concerned about game devs closing their system (Rockstar) or simply not caring at all like EA where it's a nightmare to get a mod running (thanks EA App!).
I understand why they had to ban mods from online play, but let me play sp however I want dammit.
So. What do we make of the Palworld controversy?
This game has seemingly come out of nowhere and is dominating Steam charts, on course to be one of the best selling games ever.
Its basically yet another open world survival game.... but with Pokemon little monster friends that you carry around with you named Pals. "Pokemon with guns" is another description I've heard.
Looking at it, the designs do indeed look extremely like Pokemon.
The Pokemon Company has took note of this and legal action is brewing.
I'm very curious to see how it works out. Seems very convenient the Pokemon Company would suddenly be so upset at this game becoming super succesful when we've had imitators as long as Pokemon has existed- hell, Pokemon itself copied a tonne of stuff in many aspects.
Quote from: Josquius on January 25, 2024, 04:39:08 AMSo. What do we make of the Palworld controversy?
This game has seemingly come out of nowhere and is dominating Steam charts, on course to be one of the best selling games ever.
Its basically yet another open world survival game.... but with Pokemon little monster friends that you carry around with you named Pals. "Pokemon with guns" is another description I've heard.
Looking at it, the designs do indeed look extremely like Pokemon.
The Pokemon Company has took note of this and legal action is brewing.
I'm very curious to see how it works out. Seems very convenient the Pokemon Company would suddenly be so upset at this game becoming super succesful when we've had imitators as long as Pokemon has existed- hell, Pokemon itself copied a tonne of stuff in many aspects.
I am not sure what the controversy is. Unsuccessful Pokemon ripoffs do not worth the legal cost to chase, I am sure. Here Pokemon could get some meaningful compensation if the game takes off.
Quote from: Tamas on January 25, 2024, 04:42:25 AMQuote from: Josquius on January 25, 2024, 04:39:08 AMSo. What do we make of the Palworld controversy?
This game has seemingly come out of nowhere and is dominating Steam charts, on course to be one of the best selling games ever.
Its basically yet another open world survival game.... but with Pokemon little monster friends that you carry around with you named Pals. "Pokemon with guns" is another description I've heard.
Looking at it, the designs do indeed look extremely like Pokemon.
The Pokemon Company has took note of this and legal action is brewing.
I'm very curious to see how it works out. Seems very convenient the Pokemon Company would suddenly be so upset at this game becoming super succesful when we've had imitators as long as Pokemon has existed- hell, Pokemon itself copied a tonne of stuff in many aspects.
I am not sure what the controversy is. Unsuccessful Pokemon ripoffs do not worth the legal cost to chase, I am sure. Here Pokemon could get some meaningful compensation if the game takes off.
Wouldn't this affect their case however? That there's so many of these games out there stretching back decades and suddenly they become interested because one is succesful?
Sure, but I don't think its a controversy, per se. The Whatsitsname game's creators if they lose I can't feel too sorry because it seems they were clearly going for a Pokemon vibe. If Pokemon loses, well, whatever.
Especially since I am sure Pokemon will be looking for a slice of the pie, not a cease and desist.
You can't patent or copyright a concept for a game that has companion animals that you train and fight, Pokemon style. As long as they aren't using actual Pokemon creatures, I don't see the case here.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2024, 12:32:12 PMYou can't patent or copyright a concept for a game that has companion animals that you train and fight, Pokemon style. As long as they aren't using actual Pokemon creatures, I don't see the case here.
Multiple game sites reach out to lawyers to get their perspectives.
The two places I saw where they said there might be a claim was:
1) It has been suggested that the proportions for many of their creatures match exactly to pokemon creatures and that it would be impossible for that to be the case unless they had directly copied the Nintendo models
2) Reputational harm to Pokemon via the gun angle making people associate that with Pokemon
Here's one link that looked at both of those.
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/does-palworld-break-pokemons-copyright-we-asked-a-lawyer
What Nintendo did go after (and got modder scared) was modder who put out video saying they had created mod with Pokemon creatures replacing Palworld critters in game.
Quote from: garbon on January 25, 2024, 01:01:29 PM1) It has been suggested that the proportions for many of their creatures match exactly to pokemon creatures and that it would be impossible for that to be the case unless they had directly copied the Nintendo models
Maybe . . . there was a similar case involving one of the Street Fighter games, where some of the models were copied and the developer docs referenced the SF models, and the claim still wasn't sustained.
The key concept in these cases is the idea/expression dichotomy; you can copy the idea but not a particular expression of it. Looking at the games as a whole from the preview images and video I've seen for palworld, the expression as a whole looks different.
I'm not sure what to make of the claim "the proportions for many of their creatures match exactly to pokemon creatures and that it would be impossible for that to be the case unless they had directly copied the Nintendo models". Admittedly I know nothing about computer graphic design but it's hard to see why copying proportions would be that hard. And I don't think copying proportions alone would be enough in any case if the creatures have other significant difference. You can't copyright a body proportion of a fictional animal, just the expression of the particular fictional animal as a whole.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 25, 2024, 01:13:14 PMQuote from: garbon on January 25, 2024, 01:01:29 PM1) It has been suggested that the proportions for many of their creatures match exactly to pokemon creatures and that it would be impossible for that to be the case unless they had directly copied the Nintendo models
Maybe . . . there was a similar case involving one of the Street Fighter games, where some of the models were copied and the developer docs referenced the SF models, and the claim still wasn't sustained.
The key concept in these cases is the idea/expression dichotomy; you can copy the idea but not a particular expression of it. Looking at the games as a whole from the preview images and video I've seen for palworld, the expression as a whole looks different.
I'm not sure what to make of the claim "the proportions for many of their creatures match exactly to pokemon creatures and that it would be impossible for that to be the case unless they had directly copied the Nintendo models". Admittedly I know nothing about computer graphic design but it's hard to see why copying proportions would be that hard. And I don't think copying proportions alone would be enough in any case if the creatures have other significant difference. You can't copyright a body proportion of a fictional animal, just the expression of the particular fictional animal as a whole.
They cited those graphic designers in there. I guess idea is less about the proportions but that it is evidence of the idea they took pokemon models and then just distorted them...so something akin to issues right now with art and generative AI?
Quote from: garbon on January 25, 2024, 01:21:05 PMThey cited those graphic designers in there.
I saw that but it was a lot of this anonymous guy commenting on what some other anonymous guy said.
QuoteI guess idea is less about the proportions but that it is evidence of the idea they took pokemon models and then just distorted them...so something akin to issues right now with art and generative AI?
If they directly copied the models, that would create two potential issues. On copyright, the question would be whether what they copied was protectible expression, and that would go back to idea/expression dichotomy. If all that got copied into the game were the proportions, then we go back to the earlier analysis. The other issue is that Pokemon's titles are licensed software and if the Palworld people did that, it would certainly be a breach of the license agreement.
https://www.pcgamer.com/blizzard-survival-game-cancellation-news/
QuoteBlizzard's canceled survival game had been in development for over 6 years, was highly praised by employees
By Tyler Wilde published about 15 hours ago
"Many" of the survival game's devs have now been laid off with no shipped game for their resumes, and very little public information about the project.
Blizzard's unnamed survival game had already been in development for over four years when it was announced in early 2022. Its team doubled in size that year with plans to grow even more in 2023. Now, after over six years of total development time and positive responses to the project from current and former Blizzard employees, the game has been canceled by Microsoft and its developers are out of jobs.
"I've been let go from Blizzard, along with many many others on the Survival team," wrote Matt London, the game's former associate narrative director, on X today.
Other Blizzard survival game developers who announced their departures include senior concept artist Marby Kwong, designer Ates Bayrak, senior software engineer Renato Iwashima, gameplay programmer Michael Dale, character technical artist Matheus Lima, VFX artist Rachel Quitevis, and producer Megan Embree, who had worked at Blizzard for 13 years.
The survival game's director, Craig Amai, was also laid off, and says he's now focused on helping the rest of the former survival game team land on their feet. "If you're looking for talent, the crew coming out of the Unannounced Survival Game are abnormally high quality—I cannot recommend them enough," Amai wrote in a post on LinkedIn.
Blizzard's survival game was announced as a new world "different from any Blizzard has created." Two pieces of concept art, the only material that was ever released, showed modern-day humans in a fantasy realm with a floating castle visible through overgrown forests, as well as a hooded forest ranger who wouldn't be out of place on League of Legends' roster. The crossover of this imagery suggested a premise like The Chronicles of Narnia, where ordinary children are drafted into another world inhabited by fantasy creatures.
The game was well liked within Blizzard. When it was announced in January 2022, current and former Blizzard employees publicly praised the survival game team and project—and this was at the height of mistrust and anger over allegations of sexism at the company.
This team is nuts and nice and the project is like... UGH. SO COOL," said Blizzard artist Melissa Kelly at the time.
"All I can say is it's gonna absolutely rock," said novelist and Blizzard writer Christie Golden. "Hella beautiful too. I cannot wait!"
"This is a project that will have a big impact on the industry," said Geoffrey Virtue, executive producer of Teamfight Tactics at Riot, who had formerly co-led the survival game project at Blizzard.
Former Blizzard president Mike Ybarra, who also exited the company this week, said after the 2022 announcement that he'd "played many hours" of the game and was "incredibly excited about the team's vision and the brand-new world it presents for players to immerse themselves in together."
Praise for the project on social media was so enthusiastic after the announcement that some wondered if Blizzard had encouraged its employees to talk it up online. We asked, and Blizzard told us that it had not: "We have a talented team creating this game, and we're happy to see their genuine enthusiasm for their work, and others' excitement to share it," a spokesperson said at the time.
The survival game's cancellation and layoffs are part of 1,900 job cuts across Activision Blizzard and other Microsoft gaming companies.
According to a report from Bloomberg, development of the survival game was slow in part because the team switched from Unreal Engine to an internal engine called Synapse.
"As difficult as making these decisions are, experimentation and risk taking are part of Blizzard's history and the creative process," Blizzard spokesperson Andrew Reynolds told the publication. "Ideas make their way into other games or in some cases become games of their own. Starting something completely new is among the hardest things to do in gaming, and we're immensely grateful to all of the talented people who supported the project."
The former Blizzard survival game developers now face an aspect of working in games that I've heard a number of developers lament before: On top of the threat of being laid off, they face the threat of being laid off before they've been able to release anything.
A requirement often found in game development job listings is some number of "shipped games," meaning games that have been released. A current Blizzard job listing for a lead gameplay engineer requires "at least one shipped title," for example. Not only do the Blizzard survival game developers who've been let go this week get no shipped game for their resumes, they can't even talk openly about what it was they were making.
(https://i.imgur.com/QoSO2B5.png)
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/26/tech-layoffs-jump-in-january-as-alphabet-meta-microsoft-reach-high.html
QuoteThe S&P 500 is trading at a record and the Nasdaq is at its highest in two years. Alphabet shares reached a new pinnacle on Thursday, as did Meta and Microsoft, which ran past $3 trillion in market cap.
Don't tell that to the bosses.
While Wall Street cheers on Silicon Valley, tech companies are downsizing at an accelerating clip. So far in January, some 23,670 workers have been laid off from 85 tech companies, according to the website Layoffs.fyi. That's the most since March, when almost 38,000 people in the industry were shown the exits.
Activity picked up this week with SAP announcing job changes or layoffs for 8,000 employees and Microsoft cutting 1,900 positions in its gaming division. Additionally, high-valued fintech startup Brex laid off 20% of its staff and eBay slashed 1,000 jobs, or 9% of its full-time workforce. Jamie Iannone, eBay's CEO, told employees in a memo that, "We need to better organize our teams for speed — allowing us to be more nimble, bring like-work together, and help us make decisions more quickly."
Earlier in the month, Google confirmed that it cut several hundred jobs across the company, and Amazon has eliminated hundreds of positions spanning its Prime Video, MGM Studios, Twitch and Audible divisions. Unity said it's cutting about 25% of its staff, and Discord, which offers a popular messaging service used by gamers, is shedding 17% of its workforce.
The swarm of activity comes ahead of a barrage of tech earnings next week, when Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta and Microsoft are all scheduled to report quarterly results. Investors lauded the cost-cutting measures that companies put in place last year in response to rising inflation, interest rates hikes, recession concerns and a brutal market downturn in 2022. Even with an improving economic outlook, the thriftiness continues.
Layoffs peaked in January of last year, when 277 technology companies cut almost 90,000 jobs, as the tech industry was forced to reckon with the end of a more than decade-long bull market. Most of the rightsizing efforts took place in the first quarter of 2023, and the number of cuts proceeded to decline each month through September, before ticking up toward the end of the year.
One explanation for the January surge as companies budget for the year ahead: They've learned they can do more with less.
At Meta, in CEO Mark Zuckerberg's words, 2023 was the "year of efficiency," and the stock jumped almost 200% alongside 20,000 job cuts. Across the industry, artificial intelligence was the rallying cry as new generative AI technologies showed what was possible in automating customer service, booking travel and creating marketing campaigns.
[...]
Soooo tonnes of articles being suggested to me lately about mass layoffs in the games industry, how we are on the brink of a complete crash like the US in the 80s and so on.
This sounds... Over the top. The indie scene is doing very well these days.
But are the traditional games companies dying?
Dunno...
I think people will be playing games for a long time, so there's going to be a market.
I think the major publishers have painted themselves into a bit of a corner on their risk and return. Everyone's gone all in on milking established franchises, but established franchises have gotten really tired. However, many of the majors have kind of lost the plot on how to make interesting new IP. Not only that, but they've lost the plot on how to do so without burning piles and piles of cash.
For the majors, the focus is the evergreen blockbuster. Spend hundreds and hundreds of millions on something that is massively popular and generates continual transaction revenue. But it's hard. So layoffs.
Indies can make good content (or fail to make good content), but can only absorb so much talent.
The Chinese majors are spending massive cash to make a play in the Western AAA market as a diversification strategy. That'll pick up some slack for a few years, but I'm ambivalent on whether they'll succeed.
IMO it's definitely the case that the massive organizations - both studios and publishers - have built up a bunch of cruft and lack of imagination. So there's a bit of reckoning happening there, which will suck for people who are directly affected.
... but I think games still have and will continue to have relevance.
IMO it's a good opportunity for indies to take some shots - if they can line up funding, so there's some scrappiness required.
But what the industry seem to be lacking right now is a nice predictable theory of how to profit for major investors. And that's going to involve some pain.
Something will come around at some point, I suppose.
Quote from: Jacob on March 05, 2024, 03:04:03 PMIMO it's a good opportunity for indies to take some shots - if they can line up funding, so there's some scrappiness required.
Probably a bunch of laid off folks may look at the indie track now. Yahtzee pointed out a few months back that there was a strong indie renaissance in Australia when a number of studios there went under.
Of course there's no dearth of indies these days, and it would be a struggle to stand out/gain visibility, but still. Silver linings and all that.
Quote from: Jacob on March 05, 2024, 03:04:03 PMI think the major publishers have painted themselves into a bit of a corner on their risk and return. Everyone's gone all in on milking established franchises, but established franchises have gotten really tired. However, many of the majors have kind of lost the plot on how to make interesting new IP. Not only that, but they've lost the plot on how to do so without burning piles and piles of cash.
We've discussed this in the thread; it's a malign feedback loop. With so much money at stake in each title, the majors seek to control risk by sticking to established franchises; but raising the bar on the franchise to keep fans happy means constantly increasing budgets.
The alternative would be spending less per title on new IP and diversifying across more projects but than you are just trying to replicate being multiple indie studios under a single corporate roof, which is a significant management challenge and sort of defeats the purpose of being a major.
This is how you get to the point where Nintendo bases its holiday push around a new Zelda and Mario game, and Sony's big new release is a remake of a 90s PS1 game. Even Helldivers is decade old IP.
QuoteBut what the industry seem to be lacking right now is a nice predictable theory of how to profit for major investors.
There isn't any. If gaming keeps moving towards streaming subscription, which is what has happened in music and movies/TV and seems a logical endpoint, then experience shows that the content creators get squeezed. If it doesn't, tastes are too fickle and cycles to unpredictable to generate reliable investor returns.
MSFT has the right idea just throwing wads of cash to cover every base: publishing, streaming, hardware, OS, AI. They may not make any money but they will end up with a strategic position somewhere. It's a tougher choice for the players that don't have 3 trillion in market cap to work with.
Warner Brothers have said that after the high of Hogwart's Legacy last year and the low of Suicide Squad this year they want to move away from such tentpole releases and rather focus on free to play live service games with their franchises (DC, Harry Potter etc.) with constant steady revenue streams across various platforms (including mobile).
Capcom has a steam sale right now and it demonstrates the point. Almost everything is a 20+ year old franchise.
Quote from: Syt on March 06, 2024, 09:51:10 AMWarner Brothers have said that after the high of Hogwart's Legacy last year and the low of Suicide Squad this year they want to move away from such tentpole releases and rather focus on free to play live service games with their franchises (DC, Harry Potter etc.) with constant steady revenue streams across various platforms (including mobile).
Problem with mobile FTP is that you are playing the attention economy game. As the space gets more saturated, attention is zero sum. It does probably have cost advantages though.
The take I've heard and agree with, and also honestly sounds quite nice, is that the days of AAA games are done.
Budgets and development times are just getting ever more bloated and silly to the point where you get lots of games like Shenmue: a great game but so expensive to develop every dream cast owner would have needed to buy 3 copies or something like so.
It really leads back again to the death of consoles. Which is sad but has been a long time coming.
Ever since the PS3 era new generations of power haven't really given much in the way new generations did in the past.
It's surprisingly really that things stumbled on for another 2 generations.
Quote from: Syt on March 06, 2024, 09:51:10 AMWarner Brothers have said that after the high of Hogwart's Legacy last year and the low of Suicide Squad this year they want to move away from such tentpole releases and rather focus on free to play live service games with their franchises (DC, Harry Potter etc.) with constant steady revenue streams across various platforms (including mobile).
Ugh. This is what happened to so much of the Japanese games industry.
Could it be yet another case where Japan isn't weird and merely ahead of the pack?
I'd like to hope not. Surely the age of crappy mobile games is past?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 06, 2024, 09:46:50 AMWe've discussed this in the thread; it's a malign feedback loop. With so much money at stake in each title, the majors seek to control risk by sticking to established franchises; but raising the bar on the franchise to keep fans happy means constantly increasing budgets.
The alternative would be spending less per title on new IP and diversifying across more projects but than you are just trying to replicate being multiple indie studios under a single corporate roof, which is a significant management challenge and sort of defeats the purpose of being a major.
This is how you get to the point where Nintendo bases its holiday push around a new Zelda and Mario game, and Sony's big new release is a remake of a 90s PS1 game. Even Helldivers is decade old IP.
What makes sense to me is some sort of funnel:
Invest in multiple indie studios (don't necessarily own them). Take the cream of the crop of those, identify what's good, then invest in bringing them into the AA or lower segment of the AAA space. Select your major AAA bets from whichever IPs succeed in the AA / lower-end AAA segment.
The obvious disadvantage to that strategy is that it's long term, taking probably at least a decade from "indie" to major AAA bet.
The other perhaps less obvious disadvantage is that it requires executive leadership to build an organization that has the ability to identify quality and potential and is able and willing to bet on those.
There may be other disadvantages that could explain why we're not seeing majors attempt to build that type of ecosystem and pipeline... though I do think that's part of the Tencent/ NetEase strategy.
QuoteThere isn't any. If gaming keeps moving towards streaming subscription, which is what has happened in music and movies/TV and seems a logical endpoint, then experience shows that the content creators get squeezed. If it doesn't, tastes are too fickle and cycles to unpredictable to generate reliable investor returns.
When you say content creators, do you primarily mean the major studios or also smaller players like indie studios and individual production companies?
If tastes are too fickle and cycles too unpredictable to generate reliable investor returns, it makes sense that major investors pull back. That seems very logical. But content is still being produced - and the streaming networks presumably will need some volume of new content in addition to their back catalogues. Where does it come from? How is it funded?
QuoteMSFT has the right idea just throwing wads of cash to cover every base: publishing, streaming, hardware, OS, AI. They may not make any money but they will end up with a strategic position somewhere. It's a tougher choice for the players that don't have 3 trillion in market cap to work with.
So I'm not super plugged into the streaming TV/film industry even as a consumer, but my impression is that there are indications that we might be moving back to something like the cable model? Maybe not?
What is the model in general? Obviously audiences still want to consume content, and content is being produced. Some of it even seems innovative and interesting. What are the prevailing models in film/TV? Other than the major streaming networks, who are prospering? And is any of that potentially applicable in game dev, do you think?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 06, 2024, 10:21:21 AMProblem with mobile FTP is that you are playing the attention economy game. As the space gets more saturated, attention is zero sum. It does probably have cost advantages though.
Yeah, I think it's a pretty cut-throat field. As long as enough people are in love with your IP, you can continue milking them.
In my eyes the problem facing the industry (or rather the major publishers, but close enough) is:
1) How not to fumble your IPs and keeping them alive.
2) What to do once your IP starts fading.
"Focusing on FTP, live-service" is not a strategy to answer either of those questions, IMO. It's a strategy to efficiently milk your IP before either 1) or 2) becomes too big a problem.
Random tidbit: was talking to my boss and he relayed a conversation he'd had with someone quite senior in the industry, who said "if 2023 was the year of major layoffs, 2024 will be the year of studio closures."
Sounds fairly reasonable to me. I guess we'll see.
Quote from: Jacob on March 07, 2024, 01:09:28 PMThe obvious disadvantage to that strategy is that it's long term, taking probably at least a decade from "indie" to major AAA bet.
The other perhaps less obvious disadvantage is that it requires executive leadership to build an organization that has the ability to identify quality and potential and is able and willing to bet on those.
Right there is why it is going to be close to impossible for a significant publicly traded company to do that. It's a lot of work and patience for a return that is modest in proportion to the size of the overall company.
QuoteWhen you say content creators, do you primarily mean the major studios or also smaller players like indie studios and individual production companies?
If tastes are too fickle and cycles too unpredictable to generate reliable investor returns, it makes sense that major investors pull back. That seems very logical. But content is still being produced - and the streaming networks presumably will need some volume of new content in addition to their back catalogues. Where does it come from? How is it funded?
. . .
So I'm not super plugged into the streaming TV/film industry even as a consumer, but my impression is that there are indications that we might be moving back to something like the cable model? Maybe not?
If we look at music - where streaming is most advanced - the big labels do OK, but not as well as in the CD golden age of the 80s and 90s. The individual artists have been squeezed. The platforms ironically are squeezed as well - at least Spotify has proved to be a consistent money loser. The other big streamers are folded into much bigger groups. The consumer is getting a great deal, at least as compared to the old model. But the labels probably felt they had no choice after the napster debacle.
Movies/TV is probably a better comp for games - a AAA game these days is basically an interactive movie with a script, actors etc. and movies these days use a lot of coding one way or another. In movies and TV, content creators initially did very well as competing streamers bid for new content but that dynamic has reversed as the space matures and the appetite for absorbing enormous losses at the platform level has receded. You are right that costs have allowed cable to become more competitive but "cable" is converging to OTT streaming - a cable sub now brings access to individual streaming service options plus VoD. Gen X is probably the last generation for which scheduled TV programming has real meaning and resonance.
I don't know what the future will bring, but the big writers-SAG strikes seemed like a pyrrhic victory. The creatives were given the battle because it is only a matter of time before they lose the war. The studios can't count on blank checks from Netlflix, Amazon and Apple indefinitely; so they will substitute capital for labor to control costs while supplying a steady stream of quantity. The promise of streaming and "peak TV" was that freed from the need to chase to middle for Nielson ratings, you would free up creative energies for an endless series of Sopranos, Wires, Breaking Bads, etc. There is a some of that still, but also a lot of milking the hell out of franchises.
Streaming has been slow to take on with gaming, but I think that is because for the moment, MSFT has been ceded a monopoly position and has been content to move gradually. Gamepass is a ridiculously good value for the consumer. PC game pass is 120 per year at list; if you buy codes gray market, you can get ultimate for that same price. It offers a huge library that can played on a wide variety of platforms. It's hard to see why people would drop $70 on a single AAA release when gamepass exists. That is due in part to MSFT moving slow to limit losses and FOMO over out of offerings not available on GP; but MSFT's acquisition of big studios and committing to Day 1 GP releases could shift that dynamic. [It should be pointed that Sony's offering is also good value even at newly raised prices - however, Sony's awful marketing and implementation seems deliberately intended to push people to the preferred traditional model of consumption]
If streaming does prevail, then the larger studios will trade the big profit potential of hits for more steady income flows and the smaller players will struggle to avoid freeze out. They will either have to sign bad deals with GP or play the steam discounting game.
Thanks for that analysis Minsky. It'll take a bit for me to digest it.
What I'm continually trying to figure out (and I'm obviously not the only one :D ) is what are the most viable paths (i.e. the least shitty paths) for content creators given the state of affairs you outline. I have some ideas, but it's getting late... broadly I guess it's about smaller players taking on more of the risk, and then publishers picking up games once they've been validated more thoroughly... and that's kind of what I'm seeing anecdotally in places.
Though that leaves the publishers in a position where they're at risk of being bypassed - because if a new game has been validated more thoroughly, the developer could potentially take it directly to the consumers or the streaming services.
Fundamentally I think there's still going to be an appetite for good new content. What I'd like to understand better is how that is going to be generated, given current market forces.
Why do developers need publishers? Why can't they just always go direct to the streaming services?
Other words, what value does a publisher give to a developer?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 12, 2024, 10:07:06 AMWhy do developers need publishers? Why can't they just always go direct to the streaming services?
Other words, what value does a publisher give to a developer?
If it's anything like the movie/TV industry (which is the one I'm most familiar), the answer is funding (and risk sharing), industry contacts, and marketing.
There's a reason why most success "direct to consumer" videogame stories are small games with crowfunding of some sort.
And I agree with Misnky's analysis, btw. The vibes we're getting post-strike from the movie/TV industry are pretty dire.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 12, 2024, 10:07:06 AMWhy do developers need publishers? Why can't they just always go direct to the streaming services?
Other words, what value does a publisher give to a developer?
Steam is absolutely saturated with crap. Unless you have a good game that really, and I mean REALLY, manages to catch the zeitgest of the season, good luck raising attention to it without a publisher's established ways and audience to do that for you. And that's without accounting for the fact that in my experience most lone/small team developers can very much use some professional input on design and whatnot. The latter is much less important if you are coming from an industry background, obvs.
The big publishers certainly have hefty clout.
Saw a LinkedIn post from an indie developer the other day lamenting How EA had rereleased 12 games in a day... Which happened to be her release day and pushed her game way down the new and trending chart, which is key to success.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 12, 2024, 10:07:06 AMWhy do developers need publishers? Why can't they just always go direct to the streaming services?
Other words, what value does a publisher give to a developer?
Several reasons, but bottom line IMO is money.
Most developers don't have the cash to fund a full project, or if they do they're typically betting the entire business on that one game.
Beyond that, (good) publishers also provide marketing support, potentially access to better value specialist resources within their network, and quality market research. But money is the real factor.
Right now I have a game that I think would be really good. If I had the budget - say $10 million - I'm pretty confident that I can pull together a team, build a studio, and deliver that game.
My options are:
1) Convince the public that this game is awesome enough that they'll crowdfund it. That's a pretty specialized skill to have, and the odds are fairly low. I don't think I'll succeed there.
2) Convince a publisher that they should fund it. This is a steep hill to climb in various ways, but more realistic than convincing the public. At least I know the route and the challenges.
3) Have personal connections to rich people that allow me to convince them to fund a game studio as a silent partner. I know some folks who are rich, but I don't think I can cajole $10M out of them for something like this.
4) Somehow convince the team to work for essentially free. Also difficult.
As for the Streaming services, from my point of view to the extent that they fund development they're simply a slightly different flavour of publisher.
Basically what the publishers do is provide the funding and take on the majority of the financial risk, in return for the majority of the (potential) financial upside.
Thanks all for your explanations :)
Quote from: Jacob on March 12, 2024, 05:59:28 PM3) Have personal connections to rich people that allow me to convince them to fund a game studio as a silent partner. I know some folks who are rich, but I don't think I can cajole $10M out of them for something like this.
Trust me, you won't.
I've walked around very rich people lately, people who's biggest concern is they're buying a new white pick up at 125 000$ or they grey one for 135 000$ and they'll argue over every penny for an investment they are making. No problem spending astronomical amounts (relative to their wealth) on leisure, but to spend anything on an investment, for about the same amount, they are misers.
https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/flagging-megacorp-embracer-group-is-now-selling-off-gearbox-entertainment-to-take-two-for-dollar460-million/
QuoteFlagging megacorp Embracer Group is now selling off Gearbox Entertainment to Take-Two for $460 million
Swedish games behemoth Embracer Group bought Gearbox for $1.3 billion back in 2021. Just over three years later, Embracer Group is divesting Gearbox Entertainment to 2K Games and Rockstar parent company Take-Two Entertainment for $460 million. The acquisition is expected to finalize by the end of June.
Embracer will retain one piece of the Gearbox pie however, in the form of Gearbox Publishing San Francisco, which holds publishing rights to the Remnant series and Hyper Light Breaker, in addition to "other notable unannounced game releases". The remaining arm of the business will be renamed.
Embracer Group has been ruthlessly downsizing to stay afloat, after years of seemingly monthly studio and publisher acquisitions. It sold off Saber Interactive last month to the tune of $247 million, and laid off around 1,400 people in 2023. Last year it shut Saints Row studio Volition and Square Enix Montreal, to name just a small handful of its big contractions. Rumors that Gearbox was on the out started as far back as September last year.
Embracer's recent doom and gloom is in stark contrast to 2021-22: those were the days when the company was making huge acquisitions ranging from Lord of the Rings through to some of Square Enix's former tentpole western studios, and receiving big investments from Saudi Arabia. But following the collapse of a $2 billion deal in 2023, which prompted an immediate and "comprehensive" restructuring of the business, most of the studios brought under the Embracer Group umbrella have suffered to one extent or another. Needless to say, a hell of a lot must have rested on that deal.
"Today's announcement marks the result of the final structured divestment process and is an important step in transforming Embracer into the future with notably lower net debt and improved free cash flow," Embracer CEO Lars Wingefors said in a prepared statement. "Through the transaction, we lower business risk and improve profitability as we transition to becoming a leaner and more focused company."
Gearbox founder and CEO Randy Pitchford had his say as well: "As a significant long-term Embracer Group shareholder, I believe in the strategy for the Embracer Group going forward and am completely convinced that this transaction is the best possible scenario and an obvious net positive arrangement for Embracer Group, for Take-Two and, of course, for Gearbox Entertainment. My primary interest is always Gearbox, especially our talent and our customers. I want to personally assure fans of our games that this arrangement will ensure that the experiences we have in development at Gearbox will be the best they can possibly be."
Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick also indicated in his own prepared statement that these corporate machinations are for the greater good. Gearbox will fall under the 2K umbrella as a studio, presumably with a focus on Borderlands games, which 2K has published since the series started in 2009. For its $460 million, Take-Two also gets other Gearbox IP including Homeworld, Risk of Rain, Brothers in Arms, and Duke Nukem.
I know kotaku has "a reputation", but their business model was mostly op ed articles (usually with an angle that would piss of someone therefore driving clicks).
Anyways, new ownership. Which has mandated to stop op ed stuff and instead crank out at least 50 game guides per week (with a staff of ca. 10, I think?). :wacko:
(sheds a tear for what became of https://www.wargamer.com/ )
Quote from: Syt on April 02, 2024, 01:35:51 AMAnyways, new ownership. Which has mandated to stop op ed stuff and instead crank out at least 50 game guides per week (with a staff of ca. 10, I think?). :wacko:
As in written game guides? Damn. Somebody didn't get the memo on YouTube's existence.
Quote from: Syt on April 02, 2024, 01:35:51 AMI know kotaku has "a reputation", but their business model was mostly op ed articles (usually with an angle that would piss of someone therefore driving clicks).
Anyways, new ownership. Which has mandated to stop op ed stuff and instead crank out at least 50 game guides per week (with a staff of ca. 10, I think?). :wacko:
(sheds a tear for what became of https://www.wargamer.com/ )
They also got rid of comments recently.
https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/microsoft-announces-4-studio-closuresincluding-arkane-austin-and-tango-gameworks-creators-of-prey-and-hi-fi-rush-respectively/
QuoteMicrosoft announces 4 studio closures—including Arkane Austin and Tango Gameworks, creators of Prey and Hi-Fi Rush respectively
Microsoft's Xbox division has announced a rash of studio closures as part of an effort to prioritise "high-impact titles" according to multiple sources, including IGN and Bloomberg. Included in the four announced studio closures are Arkane Austin, Tango Gameworks, Alpha Dog Games, and Roundhouse Games.
Arkane as a whole has been responsible for several excellent games over the years—such as Dishonoured, Prey, and Deathloop. Arkane Austin's most recent effort, Redfall, was far less well-received. Arkane Lyon will survive Arkane Austin's closure to work on its adaptation of Marvel's Blade.
Tango Gameworks, meanwhile, developed The Evil Within games and Hi-Fi Rush—as well as Ghostwire: Tokyo. Both will be joining Alpha Dog Games and Roundhouse Games (formerly Human Head Studios) in the round of closures.
As per a letter sent to IGN by Matt Booty, head of Xbox Game Studios, the decision was made out of a desire to funnel more resources into "high-impact" titles, including Bethesda's games.
"Today I'm sharing changes we are making to our Bethesda and ZeniMax teams," Booty writes. "These changes are grounded in prioritising high-impact titles and further investing in Bethesda's portfolio of blockbuster games and beloved worlds which you have nurtured over many decades.
"To double down on these franchises and invest to build new ones requires us to look across the business to identify the opportunities that are best positioned for success. This reprioritization of titles and resources means a few teams will be realigned to others and that some of our colleagues will be leaving us."
Arkane Austin will see some, but not all, of its members moving to work on other projects under the Bethesda banner—likewise, Roundhouse Game will also be merged with ZeniMax Online Studios. Otherwise, it's shut doors all 'round.
Developers have already taken to Twitter, both to express their frustration at the sudden news—and to offer sympathy for those impacted. "This is absolutely terrible," writes Dinga Bakaba, co-creative director at Arkane Lyon. They implore those in charge to avoid the kind of cutthroat behaviours that led them here in a further thread:
"Don't throw us into gold fever gambits, don't use us as strawmen for miscalculations/blind spots, don't make our work environments darwinist jungles. You say we make you proud when we make a good game. Make us proud when times are tough. We know you can, we've seen it before ... For now, great teams are sunsetting before our eyes again, and it's a fucking gut stab."
This news comes as a further pile-on to the crushing waves of layoffs that rocked 2023 and are, unfortunately, continuing into 2024.
It's a sting in two parts—Arkane has historically had a great pedigree of titles, while Tango's work on Hi-Fi Rush was extremely promising. Plenty of infuriated fans of the latter have already brought up this tweet from almost a year ago by Xbox's Aaron Greenberg, who called Hi-Fi Rush: "a break out hit for us and our players in all key measurements and expectations".
However, Arkane's Redfall was a major embarrassment for both the studio and Microsoft in general, and while Hi-Fi Rush is an exceptional, extremely popular videogame (it was my personal pick last year, after all) Ghostwire: Tokyo didn't quite set the world on fire. As such, Microsoft's mission statement here could be read as bracing for Starfield's short tail by scuppering—and the air quotes hang heavy here—'underperformers'.
Starfield sold well, of course it did, but it had nowhere near the continued interest as some of Bethesda's other mainline RPGs. As our online editor Fraser Brown pointed out last week, the modding community isn't as ravenous, and while Starfield was nominated for a lot of awards, it didn't win many. I'm not sure Bethesda can afford for its next project to stumble in the same way.
Microsoft itself also spent $68.7 billion on Activision Blizzard recently, which firmly plays into the persisting, Embracer-style story of large companies snatching up a bunch of studios, only for the house of cards to crumple later at the cost of said studios and their cancelled games.
Ultimately, these closures are a grim reminder of the sudden collapses that accompany a AAA industry dominated by large-scale acquisitions and gung-ho business decisions. It's a pattern plenty of developers have picked up on, and they're reasonably unhappy about a titanic industry that, somehow, completely fails to remain stable.
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/zyv32CiNL2zLrUuV5P4te.jpg)
Is there any other industry (esp. outside entertainment) that sees (fairly well known) companies constantly rise and fall like the gaming industry? :unsure:
https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/making-good-profitable-games-will-no-longer-keep-you-safe-games-industry-expresses-fury-and-heartbreak-over-closure-of-hi-fi-rush-and-prey-studios/
QuoteMaking good, profitable games 'will no longer keep you safe': industry expresses fury and heartbreak over closure of Hi-Fi Rush and Prey studios
Gamers and game developers are reeling from yet another wave of layoffs and studio closures.
After laying off thousands of employees over the past couple years, games industry executives appear to be adopting a more efficient method of what they euphemistically call "reprioritization": closing entire studios. Take-Two axed two studios just last week, and now Microsoft has bulldozed four more, including Arkane Austin and Tango Gameworks, which it acquired when it bought Bethesda in 2021.
The dissolution of these talented, well-respected teams has reinforced the feeling among gamers and developers that nothing is good enough to earn security under big publishers today. In one popular tweet, indie developer Maisie Ó Dorchaidhe listed 11 things "that will no longer keep you safe in this industry," including "a good game," "a profitable game," and "long hours and sacrifice."
(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Rv9fGe7U8JSAKASQfFESs8-970-80.png.webp)
Indeed, Tango Gameworks' Hi-Fi Rush was deemed by Microsoft to be a "break out hit" in "all key measurements and expectations" last year. And in his email to staff today (acquired by IGN), Xbox Game Studios head Matt Booty said that the studio closures "are not a reflection of the creativity and skill of the talented individuals at these teams or the risks they took to try new things." Rather, Microsoft is "prioritizing high-impact titles."
The message being heard is that you can do everything right, but still be deemed 'low-impact' at any point by the suits upstairs, and then it's curtains. In the wake of the announcement, fans and developers have expressed fury, heartbreak, and unease, especially over the future of other Microsoft-owned studios, which include Obsidian, inXile, Double Fine, and Ninja Theory.
"Extremely cool and not devastating at all how even studios and devs who make award winning or best selling games aren't safe from ✨restructuring✨ and ✨divesting resources elsewhere✨," wrote Firaxis writer Emma Kidwell.
"I don't understand the closure of Tango Gameworks," wrote Helldivers 2 studio CEO Johan Pilestedt. "I mean... Why close instead of divest [sell]? Surely the team would easily have been able to find a new home."
"I cannot imagine hearing you're being let go because of prioritisation of *another developer* is especially good for morale," said Larian publishing director Michael Douse, "especially if you're in another regional office of a shuttered sister office 🤦�♂️- imaging reading that and working in Obsidian, or something. Wild."
As it turns out Electronic Arts was just ahead of its time.
I rather liked Ghostwire, although didn't put a lot of time into it . . .
From a business perspective, there is a logic here, similar to what drives Hollywood to focus on superhero and comic IP vehicles - if a smaller studio has a bust it's basically years of operations that go up in smoke; so better stick to big franchises that may have high costs but bring reliable income flows.
Except that logic doesn't hold up under scrutiny for MSFT because gamepass is its tentpole distribution platform. And to make gamepass attractive and really work, you need depth as well as top end attractions. And the whole point of being MSFT is that you can build up a diversified portfolio of smaller developers such that if one turns out a flop, it doesn't matter, because another will have a surprise hit.
My 2c Bad move that undermines the overall strategy.
I guess maybe they expect publishers and indie studios will create enough product to provide sufficient depth, taking on the risk of flops?
Quote from: Jacob on May 08, 2024, 02:36:36 PMI guess maybe they expect publishers and indie studios will create enough product to provide sufficient depth, taking on the risk of flops?
Yes but Microsoft itself is uniquely positioned to assume that risk itself, because it can diversify across a portfolio of studios and it has no shortage of capital reserves. Seemed like that was their strategy, but then why panic and purge just because two strong developers had disappointments?
It's also a matter of perspective as in what is the real asset? Is it monetizable IP or is it the not easily replicable talent and skills of development teams. If there was any doubt how the suits at MSFT saw things, those are now definitely resolved. Hi Fi Rush may have been a success but it isn't going to spin off a franchise like Elder Scrolls or Call of Duty
I think it's because there is still discordant views on what the strategy for Xbox needs to be. There is the strategy that Minsky has layed out and there's, what I would call, the Surface strategy and that one requires Hardware to be sold. A lot of hardware.
Attractive MCU like IPs is what sell consoles, not Hi Fi Rush.
Quote from: Syt on May 08, 2024, 02:22:46 AMIs there any other industry (esp. outside entertainment) that sees (fairly well known) companies constantly rise and fall like the gaming industry? :unsure:
About anything in the tech sector, really.
Intel, AMD for their various segments come to mind.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 08, 2024, 03:08:42 PMQuote from: Jacob on May 08, 2024, 02:36:36 PMI guess maybe they expect publishers and indie studios will create enough product to provide sufficient depth, taking on the risk of flops?
Yes but Microsoft itself is uniquely positioned to assume that risk itself, because it can diversify across a portfolio of studios and it has no shortage of capital reserves. Seemed like that was their strategy, but then why panic and purge just because two strong developers had disappointments?
It's also a matter of perspective as in what is the real asset? Is it monetizable IP or is it the not easily replicable talent and skills of development teams. If there was any doubt how the suits at MSFT saw things, those are now definitely resolved. Hi Fi Rush may have been a success but it isn't going to spin off a franchise like Elder Scrolls or Call of Duty
Microsoft Games may not be a priority anymore.
They remastered the Age of Empire series which is kinda of a niche project compared to any Bethesda games. Even people here don't know the references to AoE III :(
I can't see MS doing anything comparable today. All the rage is on AI. They are investing a fuckton of money in AMD to develop their AI products/solutions, this is where the gold is. Gaming is on the backrunner again.
Just like your last paragraph, they're going for the monetizable IPs like Elder Scrolls. A MMO like ESO must not cost a lot to make compared to what it will bring. And Bethesda want to get TES VI out sometime before 2030. The fact that Starfield was a gaming flop probably accelerated their shift toward this game and they need resources. Rather than hire new people, they are reassigning existing resources.
MS no longer has the patience for long paying niche projects, they want their money now.
This is what happens when gaming studios become too big. It's just like EA. They had a gold mine with Mass Effect and Dragon Age by acquiring Bioware, they turned it to shit with Andromeda and DA2, then DA3 came out, not certain if it was a MMO or a long RPG with action sequences.
New studios are popping up. We'll have to wait 4-5 years for the cycle of good games to start again. Homeworld 3, Exodus, some promising gems like that.
Quote from: Syt on May 08, 2024, 03:13:55 AM"Extremely cool and not devastating at all how even studios and devs who make award winning or best selling games aren't safe from ✨restructuring✨ and ✨divesting resources elsewhere✨," wrote Firaxis writer Emma Kidwell.
Always has been...
Bungie, the studio that made Dungeon Keeper 1 & 2. Huge hits at the time, classics.
They were acquired by EA, their publisher, and they were making DK 3. Shut down, resources reallocated elsewhere.
The studio that made Betrayal at Krondor? Made one bad game, Betrayal in Antara. They were acquired by CUC, then CUC was caught in its own mess and Sierra was gone. It's part of Microsoft now, but only in name.
Silicon Knights who lost their suit against Epic Games for the Unreal Engine.
Ensemble Studios, bought by Microsoft in 2001, shut down in 2009 when MS exited gaming for PC (they came back later).
Pandemic, bought by EA, shut down a few years later.
As I said: EA was clearly a trend setter
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2024, 06:32:23 PMAs I said: EA was clearly a trend setter
I clearly missed your message. Sorry. :(
My hatred of EA has blinded me to every post about them. :P
Some mixed signals:
QuoteToday, one day after Microsoft announced that it would shut down four of its games studios, Matt Booty, head of Xbox Game Studios, held a town hall to discuss the division's future goals. "We need smaller games that give us prestige and awards," Booty told employees, according to internal remarks shared with The Verge.
For some listeners on the call, it was a surprising goal: Microsoft had just shut down the Japanese developer Tango Gameworks, which was coming off the small, prestigious hit title Hi-Fi Rush.
Hi-Fi Rush, which was a surprise release last year, was praised for its innovation and charm. The rhythm action game featured music by The Black Keys and Nine Inch Nails, with an art style that evoked the hyper-stylized games of the PS2 era. Just four months after its release, Hi-Fi Rush hit 3 million players. During the 2023–2024 awards season, the game went on to win a Game Award, a Game Developers Choice award, and a BAFTA.
While Microsoft hasn't shared sales data, it was apparently happy with the game. When rumors swirled that it wasn't doing well commercially, Aaron Greenberg, vice president of Xbox games marketing, wrote on X that Hi-Fi Rush "was a break out hit for us and our players in all key measurements and expectations."
By all accounts, including Microsoft's own, Tango Gameworks made a hit and something wholly unlike anything it's made before. Before Hi-Fi Rush, Tango Gameworks was known exclusively for its survival horror games, including The Evil Within series and Ghostwire: Tokyo. In an interview with Kinda Funny Games, Xbox head Phil Spencer spoke about how important it was for Xbox to allow studios to make games outside their comfort zones.
"I want to give the teams the creative platform to go and push their ability, push their aspirations," Spencer said.
Hi-Fi Rush also represented Microsoft's commitment to bringing Japanese exclusives to the console. In an interview with Game Watch, a Japanese video game media outlet, Spencer praised Hi-Fi Rush for its "high quality" and said that players could "expect" to see more AAA titles from Japan, evoking the days when Lost Odyssey and Blue Dragon were both exclusives on the Xbox 360. "While there are titles we can't announce yet," Spencer said in the September 2023 interview, translated by VGC, "we are currently developing new games in collaboration with Japanese companies." It's worth wondering if that's still the plan now that Tango is shut down.
Right now, small single-player games like Hi-Fi Rush are having a huge moment. Balatro, a poker roguelike made by a single developer, sold over 1 million copies in its first month. Manor Lords, another solo-dev project in early access on Steam, has also sold over 1 million copies. Hades 2 just released in early access and doubled its predecessor's all-time peak player count on Steam in a single day. Even the original Hades is climbing back up the Steam charts, breaking its all-time peak player count record just today almost four years after its initial release.
While we don't know exactly what sales goals Microsoft had for Hi-Fi Rush, clearly there is a demonstrated appetite for this kind of game, with Tango Gameworks positioned perfectly to deliver it. In fact, according to a report from Bloomberg, Tango Gameworks was in the process of pitching a sequel to Hi-Fi Rush before it got shut down.
With Hi-Fi Rush, Tango Gameworks gave Microsoft just what Booty says he wants: a small, creatively unique, highly praised, award-winning game. Booty's comments, then, suggest that Xbox's leaders couldn't recognize what they had on their hands — or simply didn't know how to take advantage of the success they were seeking out.
We reached out to Microsoft for comment.
https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/8/24152137/xbox-hi-fi-rush-tango-gameworks-matt-booty
Quote from: Syt on May 08, 2024, 02:22:46 AMIs there any other industry (esp. outside entertainment) that sees (fairly well known) companies constantly rise and fall like the gaming industry? :unsure:
Don't know how much it's outside entertainment, but I'd argue media (especially online).
Seems like a really bad idea for any up-and-coming studio to make a deal to b acquired by a major publisher...but also seems those same publishers act as giant gatekeepers?
There oughta be a law...
Bad idea for the employees, good idea for the owner ($$$)
EA is looking at putting in-game ads in AAA games — 'We'll be very thoughtful as we move into that,' says CEO (https://www.tomshardware.com/video-games/ea-is-looking-at-adding-in-game-ads-in-aaa-games-well-be-very-thoughtful-as-we-move-into-that-says-ceo)
EA, thoughtful. Hmm.
QuoteEA CEO Andrew Wilson confirmed the company is considering putting ads in traditional AAA games — titles that players purchase up-front for around $70 apiece. In the Q&A part of EA's latest earnings call, Eric Sheridan from Goldman Sachs asked Wilson about dynamic ad insertion in traditional AAA games. Wilson said, "...Advertising has an opportunity to be a meaningful driver of growth for us." He then continued, "...we have teams internally in the company right now looking at how we do very thoughtful implementations inside of our game experiences."
In-game ads are a natural progression of advertising, especially as the gaming industry is expected to grow to $583 billion by 2030. Some players deem this a distraction, but others accept it as a fact of life as long as the ads are placed naturally and unobtrusively — not going loudly in your face, blocking in-game content, or interrupting your gameplay just to tell you that you should buy this product or subscribe to this service.
Unfortunately, EA has had a few instances of poor in-game ads. In 2020, the company placed full-screen in-game ads for the TV show The Boys in UFC 4. Its player base poorly received this placement, especially as it disrupted the game. This backlash led to EA removing the ad soon after.
In-game advertising is not new in the gaming industry. In fact, Adventureland, published in 1978, is the first recorded title to have ads baked in-game — although it was for promoting its sequel, Pirate Adventure. In 1983, Anheuser-Busch sponsored the arcade game Tapper, which featured a giant Budweiser logo right in the game and was designed for bars. Root Beer eventually replaced the Budweiser logo in 1984 so it could be placed in arcades where minors could play.
As the market for gaming titles increased in the 90s and 2000s, many companies wanted to tap into its potential — some games, like Zool and Push-Over, heavily featured products that sponsored their titles, like Chupa Chups and Quavers. In contrast, others were blatant advertisements, like Pepsi Man.
EA's Need for Speed: Underground 2 from 2004 is famously known for its in-game ads placed on billboards all over the open world. Some would argue that EA did that for realism, as the brands in the game featured real-world companies like Best Buy, Burger King, and Cingular.
But it was in 2006 when GameSpot confirmed that EA was going all-in with dynamic ads in its titles, with Need for Speed Carbon and Battlefield 2142 among the first games to try it. In 2008, Burnout Paradise, another popular EA title, featured political ads for then-Senator Barack Obama's 2008 US Presidential election bid.
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
More recently, SCS Software, the company behind the American Truck Simulator and Euro Truck Simulator 2 titles, sold ad space to trucking company Schneider National for hiring drivers. However, most of these in-game ads are placed on billboards by the side of the road, where you would naturally see them in real life.
In-game ads are an understandable side-effect of the free-to-play format. However, it leaves a bad taste, especially if the ads are served in a AAA game you've paid good money for upfront. While the development cost of AAA titles has skyrocketed, with titles like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Cyberpunk 2077, and Star Citizen costing hundreds of millions to make, their developers have also sold plenty of copies.
If EA adds dynamic in-game ads in its titles, let's hope the company sticks to its promise of "thoughtful implementation" and "community building beyond the bounds of our games." Otherwise, its community might rise in arms and force a change, just like how the uproar over the Helldivers 2 PSN account linking forced Sony to reconsider the requirement.
If they put the advertising where advertising is in the real world - i.e. along the edge of the pitch - it might not be too bad.
If it interrupts gameplay, it'll be terrible.
There are lots of examples of sponsors not just being on the sidelines. Players wear sponsor's names, equipment is branded, fields of play are branded etc.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 11, 2024, 02:25:15 AMThere are lots of examples of sponsors not just being on the sidelines. Players wear sponsor's names, equipment is branded, fields of play are branded etc.
Yeah... though I think that stuff is already covered by the licensing? I don't know if EA could get away with showing - say - a Manchester City jersey with "United Airlines" or "Languish.org" on it instead of Etihad, and collect a fee from United or Languish for that.
Quote from: Jacob on May 11, 2024, 11:05:18 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on May 11, 2024, 02:25:15 AMThere are lots of examples of sponsors not just being on the sidelines. Players wear sponsor's names, equipment is branded, fields of play are branded etc.
Yeah... though I think that stuff is already covered by the licensing? I don't know if EA could get away with showing - say - a Manchester City jersey with "United Airlines" or "Languish.org" on it instead of Etihad, and collect a fee from United or Languish for that.
Right, but my point was that advertising is already more intrusive in the real world and so it might be an unreasonable standard to say it should be less intrusive in a gaming world.
Depends on what you believe constitutes "unreasonable." For my part, I was talking about it being "terrible," which is a subjective assessment (in this case, my subjective assessment).
In the end it comes down to execution and whether EA can implement additional advertising in a way that doesn't drive away customers in significant numbers. Neither "terrible" nor "unreasonable" really matters. It's whether they can get away with it in the marketplace.
Quote from: Jacob on May 10, 2024, 10:01:46 AMIf they put the advertising where advertising is in the real world - i.e. along the edge of the pitch - it might not be too bad.
If it interrupts gameplay, it'll be terrible.
Jacob, this is the post I was responding to. The assertion you made that in the real world advertising is only on the sides is not accurate and so holding a non real world to a standard that does not exist in reality has its flaws.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 14, 2024, 12:15:01 PMQuote from: Jacob on May 10, 2024, 10:01:46 AMIf they put the advertising where advertising is in the real world - i.e. along the edge of the pitch - it might not be too bad.
If it interrupts gameplay, it'll be terrible.
Jacob, this is the post I was responding to. The assertion you made that in the real world advertising is only on the sides is not accurate and so holding a non real world to a standard that does not exist in reality has its flaws.
Surely I meant it figuratively.
It's not just on the sides. It's on shirts too and the sporting goods companies logo everywhere is advertising too I suppose.
But there's a world of difference between footballs pretty low key sponsor logo on the shirt and say motor sport where you've a thousand sponsor logos all over the driver and car.
I honestly don't seethe problem with it if it's done like in most films. Guy gets a drink - it's Pepsi. They're paying for this. But he's getting a drink as a natural part of the script. He's chatting to a guy outside a shop. He doesn't just suddenly stop to talk about the cool refreshing taste of Pepsi.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 14, 2024, 12:15:01 PMQuote from: Jacob on May 10, 2024, 10:01:46 AMIf they put the advertising where advertising is in the real world - i.e. along the edge of the pitch - it might not be too bad.
If it interrupts gameplay, it'll be terrible.
Jacob, this is the post I was responding to. The assertion you made that in the real world advertising is only on the sides is not accurate and so holding a non real world to a standard that does not exist in reality has its flaws.
My bad. Should've used "e.g." not "i.e."
Quote from: Josquius on May 14, 2024, 02:39:34 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on May 14, 2024, 12:15:01 PMQuote from: Jacob on May 10, 2024, 10:01:46 AMIf they put the advertising where advertising is in the real world - i.e. along the edge of the pitch - it might not be too bad.
If it interrupts gameplay, it'll be terrible.
Jacob, this is the post I was responding to. The assertion you made that in the real world advertising is only on the sides is not accurate and so holding a non real world to a standard that does not exist in reality has its flaws.
Surely I meant it figuratively.
It's not just on the sides. It's on shirts too and the sporting goods companies logo everywhere is advertising too I suppose.
But there's a world of difference between footballs pretty low key sponsor logo on the shirt and say motor sport where you've a thousand sponsor logos all over the driver and car.
I honestly don't seethe problem with it if it's done like in most films. Guy gets a drink - it's Pepsi. They're paying for this. But he's getting a drink as a natural part of the script. He's chatting to a guy outside a shop. He doesn't just suddenly stop to talk about the cool refreshing taste of Pepsi.
What is the world of difference between f1 sponsorship and f1 or other Motorsport?
Quote from: Jacob on May 14, 2024, 03:21:50 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on May 14, 2024, 12:15:01 PMQuote from: Jacob on May 10, 2024, 10:01:46 AMIf they put the advertising where advertising is in the real world - i.e. along the edge of the pitch - it might not be too bad.
If it interrupts gameplay, it'll be terrible.
Jacob, this is the post I was responding to. The assertion you made that in the real world advertising is only on the sides is not accurate and so holding a non real world to a standard that does not exist in reality has its flaws.
My bad. Should've used "e.g." not "i.e."
Either way you are holding an unreal world to a higher standard than what happens in the real world.
Problem is the people who make that unreal world need to make money in the real world.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 15, 2024, 12:20:35 AMQuote from: Josquius on May 14, 2024, 02:39:34 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on May 14, 2024, 12:15:01 PMQuote from: Jacob on May 10, 2024, 10:01:46 AMIf they put the advertising where advertising is in the real world - i.e. along the edge of the pitch - it might not be too bad.
If it interrupts gameplay, it'll be terrible.
Jacob, this is the post I was responding to. The assertion you made that in the real world advertising is only on the sides is not accurate and so holding a non real world to a standard that does not exist in reality has its flaws.
Surely I meant it figuratively.
It's not just on the sides. It's on shirts too and the sporting goods companies logo everywhere is advertising too I suppose.
But there's a world of difference between footballs pretty low key sponsor logo on the shirt and say motor sport where you've a thousand sponsor logos all over the driver and car.
I honestly don't seethe problem with it if it's done like in most films. Guy gets a drink - it's Pepsi. They're paying for this. But he's getting a drink as a natural part of the script. He's chatting to a guy outside a shop. He doesn't just suddenly stop to talk about the cool refreshing taste of Pepsi.
What is the world of difference between f1 sponsorship and f1 or other Motorsport?
I'm not a big fan of any variant of motorsport. But from the flashes in my mind I do recall F1 and the rally championship both being pretty similar in cars covered in ads- more on rally cars due to being more substantial vehicles.
My point is this.
(https://britishrallychampionship.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/DSC8577-scaled-1.jpg)
Is hard to miss.
Whilst this
(https://static1.straitstimes.com.sg/s3fs-public/styles/large30x20/public/articles/2024/02/25/LYNXNPEK1N095-1.jpg?itok=AhsYSFzK)
Is a lot easier to blend into the background.
If the adds on the cars are what you are noticing during a race, your eyes are a lot better than mine
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 15, 2024, 12:21:37 AMEither way you are holding an unreal world to a higher standard than what happens in the real world.
I don't understand your line of reasoning here.
QuoteProblem is the people who make that unreal world need to make money in the real world.
I am well aware :lol:
It's ok, I don't understand your reasoning either and I am not sure how I can make myself more clear.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 18, 2024, 12:42:33 AMIt's ok, I don't understand your reasoning either and I am not sure how I can make myself more clear.
It is okay to let things go.
Fair
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 18, 2024, 12:42:33 AMIt's ok, I don't understand your reasoning either and I am not sure how I can make myself more clear.
I'm not reasoning, I'm stating an aesthetic preference.
There's a certain volume of advertising in games beyond which I will find it off-putting ("terrible" is the word I used).
Thinking of EA's soccer game I'll easily accept ads that add to verisimilitude and doesn't interfere with gameplay (ads on jerseys, sideboards et.al.). I'm more skeptical of advertising that feels real, but interferes with the flow of gameplay (e.g. half-time product ads feel realistic, but the players probably want to manage their team in various ways so they can still be annoying); but if handled well it could be okay. And I can imagine implementations that are just awful.
How will turn out? Time will tell, but I can't say I'm supremely confident that EA will handle it in a way that I appreciate.
I understand why a corporation like EA finds the idea of selling advertising attractive. The potential upside is pretty big, the risks are relatively small. As a consumer of video games (though not EA Sports titles, so that example is academic) I'm skeptical, and worry that this is a step towards enshittifying a medium I enjoy.
Quote from: Jacob on May 18, 2024, 03:30:44 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on May 18, 2024, 12:42:33 AMIt's ok, I don't understand your reasoning either and I am not sure how I can make myself more clear.
I'm not reasoning, I'm stating an aesthetic preference.
There's a certain volume of advertising in games beyond which I will find it off-putting ("terrible" is the word I used).
Thinking of EA's soccer game I'll easily accept ads that add to verisimilitude and doesn't interfere with gameplay (ads on jerseys, sideboards et.al.). I'm more skeptical of advertising that feels real, but interferes with the flow of gameplay (e.g. half-time product ads feel realistic, but the players probably want to manage their team in various ways so they can still be annoying); but if handled well it could be okay. And I can imagine implementations that are just awful.
How will turn out? Time will tell, but I can't say I'm supremely confident that EA will handle it in a way that I appreciate.
I understand why a corporation like EA finds the idea of selling advertising attractive. The potential upside is pretty big, the risks are relatively small. As a consumer of video games (though not EA Sports titles, so that example is academic) I'm skeptical, and worry that this is a step towards enshittifying a medium I enjoy.
I am not sure why but you continue to miss the point of my first post. I don't quibble with your personal preference. You made a comparison to sporting events which was not accurate. Advertising is all over sporting events, from the branding on players and equipment be, to the branding that pops up in the commentary. It is so prevalent we don't even notice it anymore. We are a long way from the days when Nike had to pay a fine to the NBA when Jordan wore their red shoes.
IGN has bought Gamer Network, which includes Eurogamer, RockPaperShotgun, Gamesindustry.biz, (parts of?) Digital Foundry, etc.
Alice Bell, Editor of RPS was led go (IGN let go a bunch of people across sites, but mostly it seems folks working from outside the UK).
Some RPS writers have posted what seems random posts in protest with (ex-staffer, now freelancer) Brendan Caldwell posting:
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/the-best-alices-in-pc-games, a farewell article that celebrates Alices in games, but pointedly not mentioning Alice Bell.
Other posts are:
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/why-do-game-custscenes-always-fade-to-white-a-sincere-plea-on-behalf-of-the-mole-people
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/screw-it-im-building-a-house-of-graphics-cards
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/you-can-get-my-old-battered-gamer-chair-for-oh-i-dunno-50-quid-1
At any rate, RPS has been up and down for me. 10, 15 years ago they were really good with most original founders around and interesting feature articles, interviews and investigative stuff. Obviously, the most (in)famous of the site probably remains John Walkers, erm, "combative" interview with Peter Molineux. I recall reading that at work when it went online and reading through it the way someone watches a slow motion mass car crash: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/peter-molyneux-interview-godus-reputation-kickstarter
With many of the writers that pulled me in leaving, some new names came on and left and came on and left, and at times the content was not "for me" anymore. I liked Adam Smith who covered RPGs and strategy games (before leaving to become lead writer on BG3); his de facto successor was Nate Crowley (before leaving to write WH40K books). Strategy is not much covered these days - I like Sin Vega's articles which often cover weird indie strategy-adjacent niche titles that often catch my interest on Steam but that I'm too coward to pull the trigger on. :P
Recently, Nic Reuben and Ed Thorn have been decent on the site, but some of the "punk" charm of earlier days is missing. Recently Alice O left after 10+ years, and their Editor in Chief, Katherine Castle, also left. Maybe partially because the network was up for sale for a while now and they saw the writing on the wall?
While not as good as "in the good old days," RPS still has some interesting takes and stories. I hope someone will step into their shoes.
There's https://aftermath.site/, formed by former Kotaku writers mostly, most prominently Nathan Grayson who left the WaPo for this. Regardless of some ethics concerns about his 10 years ago (notably not disclosing close association to developers whose games he positively showcased on sites he was working for - Kotaku, RPS, ...), he always seemed a bit of a hack. He's surely a "woke warrior", and I don't have an issue with that per se, but he used to be so deep into that persona (even before woke was a term widely used) that he seemed more parody than real deal to me.
Beyond that ... no idea? John Walker has his issues (see Molyneux interview), but I like checking his website where he reviews indie titles every week or so: https://buried-treasure.org/
I check https://tallyhocorner.com/ occasionally, Tim Stone's exile after leaving RPS. But its content is mostly his weekly quizzes, some news roundups and community games now. A google search also reveals https://strategyandwargaming.com/category/news/
But I actually read PC Gamer now a lot more than RPS. Their articles are usually fine, their reviews I might not always agree with, but they seem much less prone to score bloat (a 75% score is still pretty good for them), and they usually have competent writers for various genres. But of course it also has plenty of articles (lists, best ofs, guides ... ) geared for SEO, because that's the internet we have these days, I guess.
RPS (well, its writers) just seems to have become so self-important, these protest-articles seem to underline that.
I think they're a lot less activist than they were 5-8 years ago.
On Paradox canceling Life By You, devs are sharing their view.
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/life-by-you-devs-spent-a-month-in-purgatory-prior-to-closure-says-laid-off-designer-despite-their-sim-like-exceeding-paradoxs-expectations
QuoteLife By You devs spent "a month in purgatory" prior to closure, says laid-off designer, despite their sim-like exceeding Paradox's expectations
"We were a strong team on a strong project ready to launch to a strong audience."
Yesterday, we learned that Sims-like Life By You had been canceled, and its developers Paradox Tectonic had been shut down by parent company Paradox Interactive. Later the same day, game designer Willem Delventhal shared more a detailed account of his experience working on the game through to its cancellation, via LinkedIn.
Paradox delayed Life By You indefinitely on 21st May, having previously announced that it would launch on 4th June. According to Delventhal, however, it wasn't till some weeks after that the developers were told that they were being laid off.
"Two weeks before launch we were told we wouldn't be launching, and just now that we've all lost our jobs" Delventhal writes in the LinkedIn post, which has attracted messages of support from other former Paradox Tectonic staff. "We were only informed of this via a public announcement."
The "public announcement" in question was yesterday's post from Paradox Interactive CEO Fredrik Wester. "This is difficult and drastic news for our colleagues at Tectonic, who've worked hard on Life by You's Early Access release," said Wester. "Sadly, with cancellation of their sole project, we have to take the tough decision to close down the studio."
Paradox, says Delventhal, never really communicated the reasons for suspending Life By You's release. "Instead we spent a month in purgatory, and did everything we could to prove to them we were worth launching, including things like finding potential buyers or suggesting cutting ties and going indie. We heard virtually nothing back."
Life By You has long had a reputation for being a difficult project, thanks to repeated delays, but Delventhal - who's part of educational workshop The Indie Game Academy - says the team had been doing "extremely well" in recent months.
"I cannot share specific numbers, but I can say that we had an internal metric we were aiming for that had been approved, and that we exceeded that number by a significant portion," he writes in the post. "We also got a thumbs up a few weeks before launch."
Delventhal has his own speculations about why Life By You was cancelled, commenting that "as a business owner, some of them are understandable, but many of them are not", but he doesn't want to indulge in conjecture.
"We were a strong team on a strong project ready to launch to a strong audience," he concludes. "Really I'd like to be much more fire and brimstone about it. I'm pretty pissed, not gonna lie. But I'm trying to stay kind and respectful. So instead I'll say: this industry has become a place in which you can deliver more than expected, have AA money behind you, and still have the rug pulled two weeks before launch."
Paradox Interactive reported record revenue last year, but a decrease in profits.
I mean, without looking at the game at time of cancelation it's hard to say how good it was (or how good the devs believed it was), but also a bit iffy that Paradox wouldn't let them go indie with what they had. I know publishers sometimes like to keep an IP after they shutter a studio, but unless they plan on doing something with it - why care? (Though obviously there'd be the question of revenue sharing if they do release a game, considering Paradox probably has been footing much of the bill up till now and would want to see some return on that if the game ever was released.)
The game was only destined to become a laughingstock. So while P'dox did some shitty things, if that's how things went down, there really wasn't much to salvage, let alone the product being ready for EA.
Well not unless there was a secret version they had kept hidden from the public.
Yeah. I mean, exceeding internal target metrics can mean anything, and you might hit them but still have an unfun game. Or your targets were too soft. Etc.
IGN fired everyone from Humble games, a developer of indie games.
Naturally, it was expected that the studio was shutting down.
Que neni! False News!
IGN is deeply committed to its studio. It's just replacing everyone with an outside consulting firm.
Link (https://www.gamesradar.com/games/ign-owner-reportedly-closes-humble-games-publisher-of-wildly-popular-indie-games-like-coral-island-unpacking-signalis-and-forager/)
Glad to hear they are firing everyone with "empathy".
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 25, 2024, 06:38:50 AMGlad to hear they are firing everyone with "empathy".
I.e. they're firing everyone who has empathy? :P
Why the fuck does IGN own a game studio to begin with?
Slitherine just up and bought Battlefront. :o
https://www.matrixgames.com/news/slitherine-acquires-battlefront-elevating-the-combat-mission-series-to-new-heights
QuoteSlitherine, a leader in the development and publishing of wargames, proudly announces the acquisition of Battlefront, the renowned developers of the Combat Mission series. This strategic move underscores Slitherine's commitment to expanding the wargaming market in a meaningful and sustainable manner while honoring the legacy of a franchise that has captivated thousands of fans worldwide for over two decades.
A Landmark Franchise in Wargaming
Combat Mission is a name synonymous with excellence in tactical wargaming. Since its inception 25 years ago, the franchise has released over 20 products, selling over 1 million copies globally. These figures are a testament to the game's enduring popularity and the community's loyalty. Combat Mission has not only set the standard for realism and tactical depth but has also fostered a dedicated following around the globe.
Bringing Combat Mission to the Next Generation
Slitherine's acquisition of Battlefront signals an exciting new chapter for Combat Mission. With Slitherine's resources and expertise, the franchise is poised to evolve, embracing cutting-edge technology and innovative gameplay mechanics to captivate a new generation of wargamers. This partnership aims to enhance the gaming experience while maintaining the core principles that have made Combat Mission a beloved series.
"We are thrilled to welcome the Battlefront team into the Slitherine family," said Iain McNeil, CEO of Slitherine. "Their expertise and passion for wargaming are unparalleled, and together, we will continue to push the boundaries of what is possible in this genre. Our goal is to not only preserve the legacy of Combat Mission but to elevate it to new heights."
An Essential Tool for Defence Organizations
Combat Mission's impact extends beyond the realm of entertainment. The software is widely used by numerous Defence Organizations around the world as a planning and wargaming tool. Its realistic simulations and detailed scenarios provide invaluable insights for military training and operational planning. This unique application underscores the game's sophistication and its relevance in real-world scenarios.
Continuity and Expansion
All Battlefront staff, including co-founders Stephen Grammont and Charles Moylan, will be fully absorbed within Slitherine. This integration ensures continuity and preserves the invaluable knowledge and experience that the Battlefront team brings. Fans of Combat Mission can rest assured that the franchise is in good hands, with the original creators continuing to play a pivotal role in its development.
"We are excited to join forces with Slitherine," said Stephen Grammont, co-founder of Battlefront. "Their vision for the future of wargaming aligns perfectly with ours, and we are confident that together we can achieve great things. We look forward to bringing new and exciting content to our dedicated fanbase."
Availability and Distribution
Slitherine is committed to maintaining the availability of Combat Mission games through existing channels. All titles will continue to be sold through Matrix Games, Steam, and various other outlets. This ensures that fans can easily access and enjoy their favorite games, and new players can discover the series with ease. If you want to know more about how to redeem and/or get access to your games, please visit the FAQ or the "how to download my Games" sections.
Looking Forward
The acquisition of Battlefront by Slitherine represents a significant milestone in the evolution of wargaming. This partnership is poised to deliver new and exciting experiences for fans of the genre, while expanding the reach and impact of Combat Mission. Together, Slitherine and Battlefront are dedicated to growing the wargaming market in a meaningful and sustainable way, ensuring that this beloved genre continues to thrive for years to come.
Slitherine's strategic acquisition of Battlefront, emphasizing the significance of Combat Mission in the wargaming community and the broader Defence sector. It assures continuity, celebrates the franchise's legacy, and outlines the future vision for the series under Slitherine's stewardship
Forget about the price tag.
Oh, that's why it went on sale this week.
So. Concord. 8 years in development. Big flashy game with quite nice looking guardians of the galaxy style trailers.
But it's a multiplayer arena game so not one for me.
Nor anyone else it seems.
It's been taken offline just weeks after release....
https://www.pcgamer.com/games/fps/concord-is-being-taken-offline-this-week-as-sony-looks-to-explore-options-that-will-better-reach-our-players/
Can't help but see this as a key event in the implosion of the AAA sector.
But a move away from this kind of game is tantalising - could it be rockstar* saw the writing on the wall with finally moving away from gto online to give us a proper new game?
*who incidentally after chatting to folk who work in the games industry.... I've heard they're infamous as an especially horrific place to work.
I think the lesson if that if your strategy is to chase the latest fad, you need to move a lot faster than 8 years development time.
Is this the game that got billed as woke by detractors?
I think with Concord it's notable that I wasn't aware of the game until its failed launch. And even then it was not focus of main discussion on gaming websites. It seems there was almost 0 hype/marketing for it?
Quote from: Syt on September 04, 2024, 11:11:01 PMI think with Concord it's notable that I wasn't aware of the game until its failed launch. And even then it was not focus of main discussion on gaming websites. It seems there was almost 0 hype/marketing for it?
I remember a bit of attention a few months ago to a funny GOTG style trailer.
But certainly not what you'd expect of a 8 year development time tent pole game.
I guess I kind of just assumed that its really not a game of a type I usually go for, and my general being out of the loop on such things, I missed it.
Quote from: HVC on September 04, 2024, 10:18:43 PMIs this the game that got billed as woke by detractors?
Hadn't heard this but seems so, amongst others :lol:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2024/08/28/the-woke-war-why-the-right-believes-its-dominated-gaming-and-tv-in-2024/
I don't think AAA was the issue. It's the GaaS paid model.
Quote from: Josquius on September 04, 2024, 06:09:52 PMCan't help but see this as a key event in the implosion of the AAA sector.
I don't think so.
Black Myth Wukong is decidedly a AAA game and it's proving quite popular.
The Elden Ring with it's expansions is a AAA game and it's proving quite popular.
Space Marines 2 is certainly AAA.
This game was problematic for other reasons: apparently, it wasn't looking like a AAA game but carried the price tag.
The next Dragon Age will likely hit a wall too. They have removed so many features from the old games and are trying to convince us that less is better.
Quote from: viper37 on September 07, 2024, 10:47:57 AMQuote from: Josquius on September 04, 2024, 06:09:52 PMCan't help but see this as a key event in the implosion of the AAA sector.
I don't think so.
Black Myth Wukong is decidedly a AAA game and it's proving quite popular.
The Elden Ring with it's expansions is a AAA game and it's proving quite popular.
Space Marines 2 is certainly AAA.
This game was problematic for other reasons: apparently, it wasn't looking like a AAA game but carried the price tag.
The next Dragon Age will likely hit a wall too. They have removed so many features from the old games and are trying to convince us that less is better.
The AAA side of the industry struggling has been reported for a while. Far beyond just this one game.
Mass lay offs and all sorts of mess.
Though I did hear an interesting argument the other day that the risk to potential reward of getting the next fortnite is so great with the big budget games that they will keep doing it, it's the mid tier games that are going to be wiped out. Which is sad as that's usually where you find the best stuff.
Games like Cyberpunk 2077, The Witcher 3, etc, they are tough to make.
They require writers, voice actors, nice graphics, a lot of world building, on top of the coding.
This game was not it.
Quote from: viper37 on September 07, 2024, 10:47:57 AMThe next Dragon Age will likely hit a wall too. They have removed so many features from the old games and are trying to convince us that less is better.
It worked for he Elder Scrolls.
But what features are they taking away? :ph34r:
Quote from: Valmy on September 07, 2024, 04:02:36 PMQuote from: viper37 on September 07, 2024, 10:47:57 AMThe next Dragon Age will likely hit a wall too. They have removed so many features from the old games and are trying to convince us that less is better.
It worked for he Elder Scrolls.
But what features are they taking away? :ph34r:
Party of 3 instead of 4, no tactical combat like in the others apparently. You can't position your characters and chain moves.
Party of three? Goddamnit.
That annoyed me way back in KOTOR.
A huge part of the fun fights in DA was centered around positioning. So what? We are going to just rely on the AI in boss fights? LOL?
That sounds lame. DA was never Darksouls or even BG2 when it came to challenging combat but it had some really good fights and tactical challenges.
From the trailers it looked a lot like Mass Effect combat.
Quote from: viper37 on September 07, 2024, 10:47:57 AMThe next Dragon Age will likely hit a wall too. They have removed so many features from the old games and are trying to convince us that less is better.
Yeah IGN, bless them, is trying to hype it up but the vibe isn't there like it used to be.
Bioware games used to have compelling stories and characters combined with decent VA and often iconic soundtracks. Gameplay sections look like a mobile game, you jump around and wait for your 3 abilities to get off cooldown. :mellow:
Who is this game for? People who simultaneously like CRPGs and Raid: Shadow Legends? :hmm:
First bit of competent marketing so far for Bioware, a Brit plays through the game. :hmm:
Skyrim grandma retires: https://www.pcgamer.com/games/rpg/im-just-doing-it-for-fun-and-it-isnt-fun-anymore-skyrim-grandma-shirley-curry-is-hanging-up-her-gauntlets-and-retiring-from-making-more-gaming-videos/#comment-jump
Quote'I'm just doing it for fun, and it isn't fun anymore': Skyrim Grandma Shirley Curry is hanging up her gauntlets and retiring from making gaming videos
After nine years of traversing northern Tamriel and amassing over one million subscribers on YouTube, Skyrim Grandma Shirley Curry is done with making gaming videos.
The 88-year-old announced her retirement in a 13-minute video titled "No More Gaming Videos," explaining that she wasn't entirely happy with her decision but that it's for the best. "I'm old and I'm tired, and I don't feel like doing much anymore," Curry said. As well as her age, it seems like the classic content creation burnout has hit our Skyrim Grandma pretty hard.
"It seems I spend most of my time sitting in here at this computer, and lately—probably for the last month—I walk in here, look at my computer and think 'I've got to make a video today,'" she said. "And then I just shake my head at myself and say 'I don't want to, I have no desire to,' and I walk back out."
She continued: "I'm just doing it for fun, and it isn't fun anymore. I'm tired of it, and I'm bored to death with it. So I'm making the decision now, totally, finally. I am not going to be making any more game videos." Curry points out that she's amassed an entire library of gameplay videos over the years, encouraging her upset fans to go back and rewatch those if they want their dose of Skyrim Grandma gaming anytime soon.
It won't be the last we see of Curry, though. She might be done with games, but she says she'll "continue to make vlogs every so often," as well as checking in occasionally to share books she's been reading or potentially even chapters from a book she's thinking of writing.
But for now, it seems like Skyrim Grandma is going to be putting her newfound free time to some backburner projects. "I'm going to start making a quilt I've been wanting to make for a very long time," she said. "I designed the squares a long time ago, so it's going to be a quilt I've designed." Maybe while she does that, Bethesda can fulfil her request and "hurry up" with The Elder Scrolls 6, as she said back in 2022: "I want to play before I die."
9 years is a good run in content creation, and she hung on longer than I did - but I understand those feelings. "Ugh, I'm bored with this now!" :D
Assassin's Creed franchise lead has spoken out against the "outcry" online against the protagonists in the upcoming Assassin's Creed set in feudal Japan (apparently people are OUTRAGED about the protagonists being African-born black samurai Yasuke (who has been featured in plenty of media before this) and a female assassin.
https://www.pcgamer.com/games/assassins-creed/it-looks-like-ubisofts-finally-had-it-with-the-assassins-creed-shadows-outrage-mill-when-we-self-censor-in-the-face-of-threats-we-hand-over-our-power/
Quote[...]
"The stories we tell, the characters we create and the game worlds we build are instrumentalized by those who seek to silence creativity, to stoke fear and incite hatred. I believe we are facing what Fareed Zakaria calls an 'Age of Revolution', a time when the real conflict is not between the left and the right, but between societies that close themselves off and those that open themselves up to the world. Throughout history, it's the open societies that have always eventually prevailed. While there may be setbacks over years or even decades, it is openness that has continually pushed humanity forward.
"As the authors of 'How Democracies Die' so powerfully stated, democracies crumble when good people decide to stay silent. The same is true, I think, of our creative freedom when we allow fear to stifle our voices. When we self-censor in the face of threats, we hand over our power, piece by piece, until freedom and creativity both wither away. We cannot let that happen. It's time for us as creators to stand firm on our commitment to our values, by telling stories that inspire, that challenge and that help people connect. Our silence cannot become complicit."
[...]
The article has osme more context about the controversy, including pointing out that the series was never taking its historical setting too serious, like when you drove Leonardo's concept "tank".
There's been a best-selling novel and two miniseries about the somewhat obscure story of an English sailor who became a samurai; no one blinks an eye there. But touch the obscure story of an African retainer to a Portuguese Jesuit who became a samurai? WOKEWOKEWOKEWOKE Move along, no racism to see here . . .
Yeah, it's bizare they're screaming murder about how the new ac is just playing some woke diversity card.
Is valhala the only ac game they've played before?
The first game that gave the series it's name was about an Arab. This game is going to be set in Japan. I recall the games always open with a text about how the team who made them was diverse and means no offence.
Really odd special hate for black guys.
Given the success of the Shogun remake it makes perfect sense to see the Yasuke story boosted.
https://www.pcgamer.com/games/roguelike/balatro-dev-swings-at-pegi-for-rating-it-18-because-of-its-evil-playing-cards-jokes-that-he-should-add-microtransactions-like-ea-sports-fc-25-to-lower-that-rating-to-a-3/
QuoteBalatro dev swings at PEGI for rating it 18+ because of its 'evil playing cards', jokes that he should 'add microtransactions' like EA Sports FC 25 to 'lower that rating to a 3+'
While I joke plenty about Balatro being a secret psychic prison that's claimed the minds, heart, and souls of about half of PC Gamer's staff, it's only in jest. Balatro is, up and down, exceedingly solid value for money—a modestly-priced indie game without microtransactions or paid DLC and, despite its poker aesthetic, zero interest in promoting gambling behaviour. Unless you ask the Pan-European Gaming Information rating system, which has rated it 18+.
Balatro's developer, LocalThunk, took to X late last week to tear into the decision, writing: "Since PEGI gave us an 18+ rating for having evil playing cards, maybe I should add microtransactions/loot boxes/real gambling to lower that rating to 3+ like EA sports FC."
For context, the PEGI rating for Balatro very directly cites the game's use of poker mechanics as a problem—stating that it "teaches—by way of images, information and gameplay—skills and knowledge that are used in poker ... this knowledge and skill could be transferred to a real-life game of poker."
The hypocrisy that LocalThunk decryeth is the fact that EA Sports FC 25, a game with microtransactions in the form of "random card packs and other game items", is apparently suitable for 3 year olds. Looking into it, the game does at least appear to outright tell you the odds of getting players in its various packs—but the point still stands that one of these games has you actually 'gambling' with real money, the other does not.
"Just to clear it up," LocalThunk adds, "I'm way more irked at the 3+ for these games with actual gambling mechanics for children than I am about Balatro having an 18+ rating. If these other games were rated properly, I'd happily accept the weirdo 18+. The red logo looks kinda dope."
Now, to play devil's advocate, here, PEGI's rating is at least internally consistent. As per the rating system's site, as of 2020, a game that could be considered to "encourage or teach gambling" is an automatic 18+. Balatro does, technically, teach you some of the basic rules of poker—even if it has precious little to do with the actual game itself—whereas you can't get your lootbox fix outside of the game you're playing. It's not like real-life casinos are offering pulls on D.Va skins.
Whether that rating's fair or effective, though, is another thing entirely. Back in 2019, a researcher from York St. John University linked videogame loot boxes to problem gambling, stating that "the more money people spend on loot boxes, the more severe their problem gambling is. This isn't just my research. This is an effect that has been replicated numerous times across the world by multiple independent labs." For context, "problem gambling" refers to the actual behavioural disorder related to gambling. In other words, problem gamblers will sink money into gacha games just as they do real-life slot machines; anime girls or hard cash, it makes no difference.
I think you could make a very strong argument that PEGI's rating system is a little antiquated, here, especially if loot boxes have strong links to real-world gambling conditions—what's more dangerous, a game that teaches you some rules for a real-world gambling card game without the gambling element, or a game that has you paying real-world money for footie gacha? Or actual gacha. Genshin Impact has a rating of 12+.
I especially feel for LocalThunk here, considering the guy's so anti-gambling he's got it in his will that casinos can't make copies of his game. He doesn't even like poker all that much—me either, for the record, though I adore Balatro, even if I am cursed with incredibly bad luck. I just needed a four, man. I had, like, three in my deck. This is why I don't go to Vegas.
I recall when the Balatro thing came up, totally insane. And they are on the money with their response. Sports gambling is a far bigger problem than poker addicts, and EA sports games are riddled with exploitative microtransactions that appeal strongly to children who are a key marketing target for those games. PEGI used to give Fortnite an age 12 rating, even though the core gameplay is to go on a mass murder spree for no reason. The fact that PEGI is industry backed only makes the apparent disparate treatment of a highly successful indie title even more dubious.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 17, 2024, 09:38:33 AMI recall when the Balatro thing came up, totally insane. And they are on the money with their response. Sports gambling is a far bigger problem than poker addicts, and EA sports games are riddled with exploitative microtransactions that appeal strongly to children who are a key marketing target for those games. PEGI used to give Fortnite an age 12 rating, even though the core gameplay is to go on a mass murder spree for no reason. The fact that PEGI is industry backed only makes the apparent disparate treatment of a highly successful indie title even more dubious.
"Mom, can I have money to buy Pelé in my dream team?"
EA are absolute garbage. But they have certainly set the path for several other companies.
I see Bethesda are releasing a "DLC-sized" mod about vampires for Skyrim. For money, of course. No free lunches.
It is like when you buy a car. The price is high, but you have to buy the extras that actually makes it a decent car.
Or like flying with RyanAir?
"So you want to bring LUGGAGE?", asked the leprechaun.
"Fine, but it'll cost ya".
"Oh, you wanted an actual seat to sit in?"
"Fine, but it will cost ya".
The problem of EA and lootboxes I recall being talked about yearssss ago...but never seemed to get anywhere.
As yes. Its horrid.
Quote from: Norgy on December 17, 2024, 11:37:30 AM"Mom, can I have money to buy Pelé in my dream team?"
EA are absolute garbage. But they have certainly set the path for several other companies.
I see Bethesda are releasing a "DLC-sized" mod about vampires for Skyrim. For money, of course. No free lunches.
It is like when you buy a car. The price is high, but you have to buy the extras that actually makes it a decent car.
Or like flying with RyanAir?
"So you want to bring LUGGAGE?", asked the leprechaun.
"Fine, but it'll cost ya".
"Oh, you wanted an actual seat to sit in?"
"Fine, but it will cost ya".
I really think the "loot bag" type of gambling is far, far worse than DLCs.
I think it's hard to imagine a game company releasing content, for free, years after a game has first been sold. There's just no revenue in it. But if your DLC clearly states what you'll get, there's no randomness involved, and the game will still operate fine without purchasing the DLC, then what's the issue?
Even if the DLC is just for horse armour.
Now that being said - it doesn't really help that the initial complaint is about EA Sports franchises, which notoriously have very few changes year-by-year other than roster updates. But again - nobody forces you to buy each year's version of the various franchises.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 05, 2024, 11:12:46 AMThere's been a best-selling novel and two miniseries about the somewhat obscure story of an English sailor who became a samurai; no one blinks an eye there. But touch the obscure story of an African retainer to a Portuguese Jesuit who became a samurai? WOKEWOKEWOKEWOKE Move along, no racism to see here . . .
I've been thinking about this lately, whether the explicit push for representation has poisoned the well to some extent. I guess that's not really testable, since you can't run a control group, but I do think that the acceptance of heroines in film and game prior to the drive for female representation compared to today might indicate something.
Witcher 4 was recently officially announced. As expected ciri is promoted to the main character. And the anti woke zealots are up in arms at this.
How dare a woman who isn't wearing a bikini be a lead in a major game. They've gone woke!
Like... They've never played witcher before? It's whole thing is about oppressed minorities and how shit nationalism is.
Quote from: Barrister on December 17, 2024, 12:10:27 PMQuote from: Norgy on December 17, 2024, 11:37:30 AM"Mom, can I have money to buy Pelé in my dream team?"
EA are absolute garbage. But they have certainly set the path for several other companies.
I see Bethesda are releasing a "DLC-sized" mod about vampires for Skyrim. For money, of course. No free lunches.
It is like when you buy a car. The price is high, but you have to buy the extras that actually makes it a decent car.
Or like flying with RyanAir?
"So you want to bring LUGGAGE?", asked the leprechaun.
"Fine, but it'll cost ya".
"Oh, you wanted an actual seat to sit in?"
"Fine, but it will cost ya".
I really think the "loot bag" type of gambling is far, far worse than DLCs.
I think it's hard to imagine a game company releasing content, for free, years after a game has first been sold. There's just no revenue in it. But if your DLC clearly states what you'll get, there's no randomness involved, and the game will still operate fine without purchasing the DLC, then what's the issue?
Even if the DLC is just for horse armour.
There's an issue with day one dlc.
Quote from: Josquius on December 17, 2024, 02:06:36 PMThere's an issue with day one dlc.
And what exactly is the issue?
Quote from: Neil on December 17, 2024, 01:29:50 PMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on November 05, 2024, 11:12:46 AMThere's been a best-selling novel and two miniseries about the somewhat obscure story of an English sailor who became a samurai; no one blinks an eye there. But touch the obscure story of an African retainer to a Portuguese Jesuit who became a samurai? WOKEWOKEWOKEWOKE Move along, no racism to see here . . .
I've been thinking about this lately, whether the explicit push for representation has poisoned the well to some extent. I guess that's not really testable, since you can't run a control group, but I do think that the acceptance of heroines in film and game prior to the drive for female representation compared to today might indicate something.
There's something to both sides here really.
There is definitely an aspect in pop culture/computer game commentary that really is kind of racist/sexist. Minsky and Jos pick up fair examples in Assassin's Creed and Witcher.
But also - there really has been a very explicit push for representation by women / visible minorities, to the point where I can understand the feeling some people have of "wait - aren't we allowed to have white male protagonists anymore?".
Quote from: Barrister on December 17, 2024, 04:10:04 PMQuote from: Josquius on December 17, 2024, 02:06:36 PMThere's an issue with day one dlc.
And what exactly is the issue?
Selling a game for $50 but then breaking off part of the game for an extra $15...
It should be part of the base game.
When the dlc comes later then paying extra is fine. Those developers need to be employed for the extra time to make it.
Quote from: Josquius on December 17, 2024, 02:06:36 PMWitcher 4 was recently officially announced. As expected ciri is promoted to the main character. And the anti woke zealots are up in arms at this.
It's overblown.
I've seen more comments outraged at the outrage than real outrage.
Quote from: Josquius on November 05, 2024, 04:51:59 PMYeah, it's bizare they're screaming murder about how the new ac is just playing some woke diversity card.
Is valhala the only ac game they've played before?
The first game that gave the series it's name was about an Arab. This game is going to be set in Japan. I recall the games always open with a text about how the team who made them was diverse and means no offence.
Really odd special hate for black guys.
Given the success of the Shogun remake it makes perfect sense to see the Yasuke story boosted.
Yeah - there's a good Flying Lotus show about it too.
I suppose with other AC games I feel like you don't play outsiders (beyond being part of a cult of assassins obvs :lol:) - so Arab in the Crusades, Italian in the Renaissance, vagabonds in Victorian London, Viking doing Viking stuff etc - so generously they maybe wanted it a bit more Ghost of Tsushima playing a samurai in Japan. (And for the real historical horrors of those games they made a game where Robespierre's a baddy :bleeding: <_<)
So skipping when you played as a pirate and also when a mixed race Native American?
There's also a funny habit of replacing minorities with other minorities. Asian in this case, but often red heads. I consider gingers minorities... and maybe cursed :P
Quote from: garbon on December 17, 2024, 06:34:40 PMSo skipping when you played as a pirate and also when a mixed race Native American?
Yeah - I missed those games :lol:
Those must have come out in the years when I didn't have a console :lol: Didn't own the Victorian England one but my little brother had it. I skipped from Assassin's Creed II (which I loved) to the Greek one (which I also loved) - and again Greek hero in Greek heroic setting. Then got the Baghdad one - and will probably get the Japanese one too :ph34r:
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 17, 2024, 06:38:42 PMQuote from: garbon on December 17, 2024, 06:34:40 PMSo skipping when you played as a pirate and also when a mixed race Native American?
Yeah - I missed those games :lol:
Those must have come out in the years when I didn't have a console :lol: Didn't own the Victorian England one but my little brother had it. I skipped from Assassin's Creed II (which I loved) to the Greek one (which I also loved) - and again Greek hero in Greek heroic setting. Then got the Baghdad one - and will probably get the Japanese one too :ph34r:
Found this list.
QuoteAssassins Creed •Location: "The Holy Land" modern day Israel •Time Period: Third Crusade (1191) •Character: Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad
Assassins Creed II •Location: Florence, Italy •Time Period: Italian Renaissance (1476-1499) •Character: Ezio Auditore
Assassins Creed Brotherhood •Location: Rome, Italy •Time Period: 1499-1507 •Character: Ezio Auditore
Assassins Creed Revelations •Location: Constantinople •Time Period: 1511 •Character: Ezio Auditore
Assassins Creed III •Location: Boston, New York, American Colonial Frontier •Time Period: American Revolution (1760-1783) •Character: Ratonhnhaké:ton (Connor Kenway)
Assassins Creed IV Black Flag •Location: The Caribbean •Time Period: The Golden Age of Piracy (18th Century) •Character: Edward Kenway Assassins Creed Rogue •Location: North Atlantic •Time period: Seven Years War (mid 18th century) •Character: Shay Patrick Cormac
Assassins Creed Unity •Location: Paris, France •Time Period: French Revolution (1789-1794) •Character: Arno Dorian
Assassins Creed Syndicate •Location: London, England •Time Period: Industrial Revolution (1868) •Character: Jacob & Evie Frye
Assassins Creed Origins •Location: Egypt •Time Period: Ptolemaic period (49-47 BCE) •Character: Bayek of Siwa
Assassin Creed Odyssey •Location: Greece •Time Period: Peloponnesian War (431-422 BCE) •Character: Kassandra/Alexios
Assassins Creed Valhalla •Location: Norway/England •Time Period: The Dark Ages of England (9th century) •Character: Eivor
Yeah I missed Brotherhood to Odyssey. Played a little bit of Syndicate.
Does feel a bit weird given that list for their first game in East Asia (especially because I feel like that is, in its own way a trope, particularly about Japan). Having said it's a cool character to pick and I will probably get it :lol:
We used to play poker in grade school. No one got addicted.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 17, 2024, 06:49:56 PMYeah I missed Brotherhood to Odyssey. Played a little bit of Syndicate.
Does feel a bit weird given that list for their first game in East Asia (especially because I feel like that is, in its own way a trope, particularly about Japan). Having said it's a cool character to pick and I will probably get it :lol:
Goddamned Odyssey made me go to Greece again. Physically. <_<
Quote from: grumbler on December 17, 2024, 10:10:01 PMWe used to play poker in grade school. No one got addicted.
Do you still play to this day? :ph34r: :P
Quote from: grumbler on December 17, 2024, 10:10:01 PMWe used to play poker in grade school. No one got addicted.
In elementary school, we played for peanuts, literally peanuts.
Not poker, but Schwimmen was very popular in my youth, generally you'd play for matches or other chits, or use (low denomination) coins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwimmen
Quote from: Barrister on December 17, 2024, 12:10:27 PMI think it's hard to imagine a game company releasing content, for free, years after a game has first been sold. There's just no revenue in it.
Larian seems to be doing it.
In Bioware news, the new DA game flopped big time (3rd dud in a row) and the game director quit, plus the entire writing team has subsequently been fired. Everyone else has been dispersed to other EA projects. There's supposedly a skeleton crew working on a new Mass effect game but I wouldn't bet on them ever releasing anything at this point. An end of an era for sure.
BioWare's Restructuring Sees Departure of Entire 'Dragon Age: The Veilguard' Writing Team (https://fictionhorizon.com/biowares-restructuring-sees-departure-of-entire-dragon-age-the-veilguard-writing-team/)
I liked that game. I played in it's entirety for 66 hours. The writing was piss poor at best.
I didn't feel any need to play it after seeing the reveal trailer. The only Bioware-adjacent game I keep an eye out for is Exodus. It's an RPG being developed by a lot of ex-Bioware OG devs. :hmm:
DA?
Mass Effect is very likely to happen.
It's an odd feeling seeing people you know losing their jobs, but also knowing that there's a reason for it.
So failguard after all...
All those reviewers calling it a return to form have their pants on their ankles, especially since a number of publications have already disavowed their earlier stellar score.
I do hope mass effect is a real return to form. Curious about exodus where iirc Peter Hamilton is writing accompanying books
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 31, 2025, 12:24:10 PMSo failguard after all...
All those reviewers calling it a return to form have their pants on their ankles, especially since a number of publications have already disavowed their earlier stellar score.
I do hope mass effect is a real return to form. Curious about exodus where iirc Peter Hamilton is writing accompanying books
Bioware is a classic example of how a once-great organization dies from within.
Quote from: Legbiter on February 01, 2025, 09:28:54 AMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 31, 2025, 12:24:10 PMSo failguard after all...
All those reviewers calling it a return to form have their pants on their ankles, especially since a number of publications have already disavowed their earlier stellar score.
I do hope mass effect is a real return to form. Curious about exodus where iirc Peter Hamilton is writing accompanying books
Bioware is a classic example of how a once-great organization dies from within.
Oh it was very much killed from without. When EA drove off the founders I knew it was a matter of time.
Still collapsed far quicker than I thought. It was a damn miracle Dragon Age Inquisition was decent in retrospect.
I wouldn't say the founders were 'driven out' so much as they decided to retire with tens of millions of dollars in their pockets. It's pretty telling that neither is involved in the industry anymore. Ray is focused on philanthropic investment while Greg has been dedicated to micro-brewing. EA's main contribution to their exits was making them fabulously wealthy (although Greg was already losing interest before EA was in the picture).
BioWare had all kinds of problems, and EA was part of it, but the lion's share of the problem was bad leadership that couldn't establish a strong vision for what they wanted to do, and when they finally had something imposed on them, couldn't deliver.
My personal thoughts on Veilguard are that it wasn't my kind of game. I prefer the more isometric, less action-oriented RPGs. That said, I think that the combat system was reasonably good, although not exactly breaking new ground. The character writing was a big problem for me though. I don't know who played the last DLC for Mass Effect 3, but in it many characters are at a party being quippy and light. It seemed like they were trying to replicate that tone, only we didn't have anything like the same level of relationship with these characters. It worked at the end of ME3 because we'd faced everything over three games with these characters, we'd passed through professional and serious and become real friends. Not only that, but the situation allowed for a somewhat lighter tone. We hardly know who most of the characters in Veilguard are, and they're quipping us like we're the Guardians of the Galaxy or something. And really, that was part of the problem: Marvel has drained the well dry there and salted the earth with quip-machine dialogue. When the elf mechanic girl I've just met is cracking wise to me in this survival situation like she's a Zoomer on drugs who has never faced any kind of hardship or struggle before, I roll my eyes so hard.
Quote from: Neil on February 01, 2025, 06:17:39 PMI wouldn't say the founders were 'driven out' so much as they decided to retire with tens of millions of dollars in their pockets. It's pretty telling that neither is involved in the industry anymore. Ray is focused on philanthropic investment while Greg has been dedicated to micro-brewing. EA's main contribution to their exits was making them fabulously wealthy (although Greg was already losing interest before EA was in the picture).
Fair enough. For whatever reason, them leaving the company was a worrying sign. Nobody really stepped in to take their place.
Quote from: Legbiter on January 31, 2025, 11:22:18 AMhere's supposedly a skeleton crew working on a new Mass effect game
100 developers, exactly.
And the game isn't very advanced as they haven't yet figured what kind of game they really want to make.
Quote from: Neil on January 31, 2025, 12:14:43 PMbut also knowing that there's a reason for it.
I can understand the writing team losing their job.
Or they were given constraints by the studio, tried to work within it and failed, in that case, it's unfair.
Quote from: Neil on February 01, 2025, 06:17:39 PMThe character writing was a big problem for me though. I don't know who played the last DLC for Mass Effect 3, but in it many characters are at a party being quippy and light. It seemed like they were trying to replicate that tone, only we didn't have anything like the same level of relationship with these characters. It worked at the end of ME3 because we'd faced everything over three games with these characters, we'd passed through professional and serious and become real friends. Not only that, but the situation allowed for a somewhat lighter tone. We hardly know who most of the characters in Veilguard are, and they're quipping us like we're the Guardians of the Galaxy or something.
Yeah turning Dragon Age into a PG rated Young Adult fiction and expecting the existing fandom painstakingly built over 3 games to show up, plus the "modern audience" zoomers did not work out to put it mildly. :frusty: Tonally the game is silly and childish and just cringe scene after cringe scene.
Quote from: Neil on February 01, 2025, 06:17:39 PMAnd really, that was part of the problem: Marvel has drained the well dry there and salted the earth with quip-machine dialogue. When the elf mechanic girl I've just met is cracking wise to me in this survival situation like she's a Zoomer on drugs who has never faced any kind of hardship or struggle before, I roll my eyes so hard.
Exactly, the Venn diagram between the previous DA fandom and the Veilguard writers therapy self-inserts is around 1 million copies globally it seems. It's like Bioware is suffering from 2-3 brainrots simultaneously and nothing has been done about it for the last 10 years.
At least the Veilguard marketing campaign managed to make me replay the old DA games.
EA Boss Suggests Dragon Age: The Veilguard Didn't Meet Expectations As It Lacked Live Service Components (https://www.psu.com/news/ea-boss-suggests-dragon-age-the-veilguard-didnt-meet-expectations-as-it-lacked-live-service-components/)
:frusty: :frusty: :frusty:
QuoteAndrew Wilson, CEO of Electronic Arts, has suggested that Dragon Age: The Veilguard didn't meet the publisher's internal sales expectations due to it lacking live service components, something which was originally planned for the game but scrapped during development.
Speaking during the publishing giant's latest earnings call overnight, Wilson said that games must break from core audiences by catering to evolving player demands, which include "shared-world features and deeper engagement alongside high-quality narratives in this beloved category."
(https://i.imgur.com/6YhLDN4.png)
Mike Laidlaw was the former Creative Director and lead designer for the Dragon Age series. He quit Bioware after DA:Inquisition in 2017, along with several veterans.
His entire BlueSky thread:
https://bsky.app/profile/mikelaidlaw.bsky.social/post/3lhhb477frc2h
How can you be CEO of a major game developer with an RPG franchise and not be aware that Baldur's Gate 3 exists?
EA and Bioware has never had a failed live service project so I can see why he thought that.
Look just close it down EA, you already killed it.
Quote from: Valmy on February 05, 2025, 08:23:57 PMEA and Bioware has never had a failed live service project so I can see why he thought that.
Look just close it down EA, you already killed it.
Anthem was a failure. Co-op 4 players, even though it could be played solo.
Valmy was being sarcastic, Viper.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 05, 2025, 08:18:06 PMHow can you be CEO of a major game developer with an RPG franchise and not be aware that Baldur's Gate 3 exists?
One of the writers (or was it Laidlaw?) Once said that EA never "got" Dragon Age. They didn' understand the game, they didn't understand its popularity either.
If you look at EA's catalogue of IPs, they have no role playing games outside of Bioware.
Past studios have long been closed.
They make sports games for console players that are essentially the same year after year with some better graphics.
Thing is, for a few years now, console gaming has been declining in favor of pc gaming.
If you look at any pc gaming forum, sports games aren't in the top 10 games mentionned by players.
Star Wars the Old Republic was never able to compete with WoW.
If these two do not generate revenue, EA has no cash cows. And quite suddenly, there's a magnificent CEO bringing in money that does not appear so much genius like to the board anymore and he needs to bring in money.
He's trying what yas been tried before without thinking further because he does.nit understand his business.
He's possibly very good at financial analysis, deciding ratios and all that, but he suck at understanding what makes a company great.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 06, 2025, 09:46:13 AMValmy was being sarcastic, Viper.
Ah.
Sorry. I'm very tired, I do not get all the references. :(
Ironically, one of the first video games that I ever played, back in 1990, was a RPG from Electronic Arts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_from_Hell_(video_game)
Quote from: Solmyr on February 06, 2025, 10:25:22 AMIronically, one of the first video games that I ever played, back in 1990, was a RPG from Electronic Arts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_from_Hell_(video_game)
One of the first ones I played was The Bard's Tale, 1985. Also a single player RPG, also by Electronic Arts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bard%27s_Tale_(1985_video_game)
But that was back when those kinds of games were fashionable. The gaming industry has left RPGs for dead a couple times (especially of the single player variety) since then as they were not cool anymore. Nerds have rallied to save them a few times. A great example of that was...hey...Bioware in 1998. EA bought a company whose entire reason for existence was to make single player RPGs when they don't like single player RPGs.
I was frankly shocked when they bought the company back in 2007, or whenever it was, after EA had so little interest in Origin and making single player Ultima games a decade before.
Quote from: viper37 on February 06, 2025, 10:05:02 AMHe's trying what yas been tried before without thinking further because he does.nit understand his business.
He's possibly very good at financial analysis, deciding ratios and all that, but he suck at understanding what makes a company great.
One of the things that drives me nuts about this industry, and frankly every industry, is companies get founded by people who want to make a gaming company and they know about gaming (or whatever maybe it is cars or agriculture or whatever). But if a company is successful enough it eventually just becomes a financial company run by people who don't know or care about what the company is supposed to be making. So EA (and the other big publishers) is not really a gaming company. If they found a really profitable way to not make games, they wouldn't make them.
Quote from: Valmy on February 06, 2025, 11:16:39 AMQuote from: Solmyr on February 06, 2025, 10:25:22 AMIronically, one of the first video games that I ever played, back in 1990, was a RPG from Electronic Arts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_from_Hell_(video_game)
One of the first ones I played was The Bard's Tale, 1985. Also a single player RPG, also by Electronic Arts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bard%27s_Tale_(1985_video_game)
But that was back when those kinds of games were fashionable. The gaming industry has left RPGs for dead a couple times (especially of the single player variety) since then as they were not cool anymore. Nerds have rallied to save them a few times. A great example of that was...hey...Bioware in 1998. EA bought a company whose entire reason for existence was to make single player RPGs when they don't like single player RPGs.
I was frankly shocked when they bought the company back in 2007, or whenever it was, after EA had so little interest in Origin and making single player Ultima games a decade before.
I found the graveyard:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acquisitions_by_Electronic_Arts
So many studios went to die... :(
Quote from: Valmy on February 06, 2025, 11:20:37 AMBut if a company is successful enough it eventually just becomes a financial company run by people who don't know or care about what the company is supposed to be making.
You go public.
It's a very hard transition.
I've seen it first hand, even though I was very young, with my dad's former employer. My father lost a shit ton of money. So did a lot of people, except for the founder of the company. :glare:
When company go public, they need to hire counsultants, and then CEOs to replace their founder so to they make acquisition or have projects that boost the value of the title on the markets, even if it does not bring in a lot of money.
Sometimes, they strike gold. EA Sports, with NFL and NBA, NHL for other non US markets (even some US markets, though I suspect NFL and NBA dwarfs their revenus in the US). But other times, it can quickly lead to failure.
Speaking of single player RPGs doing well, Kingdom Come Deliverance II had a stellar launch a couple of days ago. The pent-up market demand for well made RPGs is enormous when one actually manages to release. Sold a million copies within 24 hours.
Quote from: Legbiter on February 06, 2025, 03:15:47 PMSpeaking of single player RPGs doing well, Kingdom Come Deliverance II had a stellar launch a couple of days ago. The pent-up market demand for well made RPGs is enormous when one actually manages to release. Sold a million copies within 24 hours.
That's good to hear.
It looks really good on high end PCs.
Combat is still incredibly incomprehensible.
https://www.pcgamer.com/games/third-person-shooter/just-couldnt-dodge-that-big-boot-i-guess-no-matter-how-big-the-success-of-the-gig-marvel-rivals-developers-in-the-us-say-netease-just-laid-off-their-whole-team/
QuoteNetEase confirms Marvel Rivals layoffs, says cuts were made 'to optimize development efficiency for the game'
Marvel Rivals is a big hit—the first real challenger to the long-time hero shooter big dog Overwatch. Yet amidst that success, with more than 200,000 people playing on Steam alone right now, NetEase game director Thaddeus Sasser says the Marvel Rivals development team in the US has been laid off.
"This is such a weird industry," Sasser wrote on LinkedIn. "My stellar, talented team just helped deliver an incredibly successful new franchise in Marvel Rivals for NetEase Games...and were just laid off!"
Sasser's LinkedIn profile lists him as a game director at NetEase, working on Marvel Rivals. The game's creative director is Guangyun Chen, better known to players as Guangguang.
Level designer Jack Burrows confirmed the layoffs in a separate post. "Welp, just got laid off from my job working on Marvel Rivals with NetEase," Burrows wrote. "Was an enormous pleasure to work with my American coworkers who join me in this sad culling. Just couldn't dodge that big boot I guess, no matter how big the success of the gig."
And that's really the heart of the matter: Why would NetEase do this? Marvel Rivals is a major hit and, as reported by Chinese site GameLook (via 80lv), it seems to be making a lot of money—an estimated $136 million in its first month alone.
At the same time, the game is still finding its footing, and as we saw recently with Multiversus, a strong start can fade quickly if the team behind it doesn't stay on top of things. The core Marvel Rivals development team is presumably based in China but even so, cutting off an entire studio at this very early, game-is-a-hit stage is baffling.
Some have speculated that this may have been the plan all along: Get Marvel Rivals spun up, and then cut the team operating it down to the bone. NetEase has been dialing back its US plans in recent months: In November 2024, it ended funding for recently-founded studios Worlds Untold, launched in 2023 by BioWare veteran Mac Walters, and in January it pulled the plug on Jar of Sparks, founded by Halo and Destiny 2 veteran Jerry Hook in 2022. In August 2024, NetEase also reportedly laid off most employees at Ouka Studios, the developer of Visions of Mana, before the game even came out.
NetEase isn't shy about cutting back where and when it deems necessary, in other words, but even in that light this is a weird one. Marvel Rivals is a hit but it's also still in a fragile, formative state, which doesn't seem to me like the time to be laying off developers.
UPDATE: NetEase has now confirmed the layoffs of Marvel Rivals developers in a statement provided to PC Gamer.
"We recently made the difficult decision to adjust Marvel Rivals' development team structure for organizational reasons and to optimize development efficiency for the game," a NetEase representative said. "This resulted in a reduction of a design team based in Seattle that is part of a larger global design function in support of Marvel Rivals. We appreciate the hard work and dedication of those affected and will be treating them confidentially and respectfully with recognition for their individual contributions."
The company added that the core development team in China "remains fully committed to delivering an exceptional experience," and that it is "investing more, not less, into the evolution and growth of this game. We're excited to deliver new super hero characters, maps, features, and content to ensure an engaging live service experience for our worldwide player base."
NetEase didn't say how many employees were put out of work but confirmed that there are now no Seattle-based developers working on Marvel Rivals.
Do a great job, get fired. Do a shitty job, get fired.
Might as well do a shitty one I guess.
Read this article today. Hits on my favourite cause.
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/the-uk-games-industry-has-a-class-problem-heres-how-one-organisation-is-trying-to-fix-it
Though seems to fail to address the elephant in the room - salaries are shit.
If you're from a working class background you need a higher salary as that's all you've got to live off.