Activision Blizzard Is Trying to Stop a Union Vote at Its Albany Office
vice.com
vice.com
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HZGjc0LkXXw/UYwB9YaXFRI/AAAAAAAAA...
He's kind of a one-man army, but his influence definitely has shaped the more popular games and industry landscape today.
[0]: https://www.riotgames.com/en/who-we-are/riot-games-leadershi...
GW2 was easily my personal biggest let-down in gaming of all time. They eliminated GW1's namesake PVP mode and the entirety of its super-deep build and combat system.
So I can see why they went down the route they did. I agree it's a bit of a shame though. Would kill for a GW1 re-release with some updated graphics and QoL improvements.
Maybe it made sense for them in order to reach a bigger audience and maybe it paid off for them. I just wish they hadn't gone the "true MMO" route.
Holly "Windstalker" Lonsdale is Vice President and Executive Producer of World of Warcraft now. That woman knows how to milk it. She oversaw Everquest 1 and 2. Expansion prices of 150€ were common. WoW just isn't quite there yet, but it will be eventually.
I'm not a WoW fan. I blame it for many things, but I'm bored and saw Dragonflight being in Pre-order advertising and checked out the prices. 50€ bare minimum. No thanks. I'm no longer playing that game, I moved back to piracy. Paying a subscription fee to play a game who's main design is to keep you playing so you spend more money in the in game shop is not my kind of entertainment.
The thing that's weird is, I don't think this is normal at all. On Nintendo's end, you can still play Splatoon 2 just fine even though Splatoon 3 came out, even on multiplayer. Multiplayer games often have a long life after they're superceded, even if it's a smaller contingent. If you boot up Quake 3 Arena or Unreal Tournament 2004, you can see there are still players online pretty much always, even if it's a small contingent.
The only good reason I can think of for utterly axing old games is so that you don't have to compete with them. Why buy Reforged for $40 when you could get the original better Warcraft III on GoG? (You can't, of course; you can only get Warcraft I and II on GoG, at least now.) In case of Overwatch, they WOULD have to continue to run the servers. But surely, the majority of players would switch to the new game anyway, right?
My opinion should be taken as a grain of salt because Warcraft III is one of the last games I really liked that much from Blizzard, to be honest. But still, something stinks over at Activision Blizzard, and it's somehow not just Bobby Kotick.
I have played a bit of WoW, SCII, and Overwatch, and nothing will come close to finding a new custom game Sunday morning at 2 am and having fun with a random lobby.
The "melee" (standard mode) matches were great too.
I have played a lot of games and genres and nothing will ever top that experience for me.
But Warcraft III feels like it's from a completely different era, so it's kind of shocking that they replaced it with Reforged. It's like if Valve patched CounterStrike 1.6 so that it's just CS: GO with shittier graphics.
That said, there are plenty of more cynical reasons why Blizzard removed OW1 which are likely also true…
Ages ago, there was a large update to OW1, which I believe had something to do with 'readiness' for OW2 in the form of major engine changes, etc. Nothing was really new after that patch, but it was massive, and may have actually been a full reinstall. Memory is flaky there, and I don't want to look for details while at work.
I'd bet $1 that the megapatch (and patches since) would have been designed with OW2 in mind, since OW2 took a long time in the oven. Extrapolating a bit, I think of it as running the OW2 engine in OW1 compatibility mode, or something.
Also existing owners of OW1 were given additional stuff for OW2. Of course, I (as an owner myself) don't think it was a good compensation and hate Blizzard for removing the old game. But there is enough justification that your original price has been repaid in content.
Unsure if these have been rigorously tested in court though.
If you only played for free then it may sting but you have no right to compensation, only to annoyed venting.
But people are saying they paid $60 for it. They have a right to compensation. Moreover, it feels like this should not only be handled by individual damages related to the value of the product but also a fine or punitive damages related to what they thought they would gain from the scheme.
This one is self-inflicted. The whole role queue system sucks.
I played a final 40 hours of OW1 just before OW2 came out then played 40 hours of OW2. 5v5 in its current state has problematic balancing issues, but I will set those aside with the assumption that they'll eventually be fixed. I will also set aside the total destruction of the metagame as that is their business department's plan.
The real scandal with OW2 is that they removed all performance feedback. No more being on fire, no more end-game cards where you could give kudos to a player on either team. In its place is nothing and there is no business justification for it. Defeats are crushing, victories are hollow. No levels or loot boxes. I can't ask my friends to come back and play because it's just bad. I'm just not going to play anymore.
In OW2, the new heroes are on tier 55 of the battlepass, if you're a free-to-play user. If you buy the pass, you unlock the hero for play instantly. As far as I know, there is no word on hero availability for those who do neither, for when the pass duration runs out.
Having played the first game, the monetization model of the second feels like a slap in the face. They've added new categories of worthless junk cosmetics to pad things out. It feels like they looked at other battlepass models, and threw a bunch of random shit together to pad it out.
But hey, if you don't want to grind too much, you can always buy the Battlepass +20 package, and knock out the first 20 tiers instantly!
I heard some rumors that hero's will be unlockable via challenges in seasons after they were released.
[0] Not "inventing". TF2 was the OG "loot boxes in paid games" game, and mobile F2P was already awash with loot boxes.
In contrast you'd need to spend the full purchase price of OW1 several times over just to buy the skins that aren't even available in the battlepass.
Everyone I knew that actually played OW1 enjoyed blizzard's implementation of lootboxes, and afaict everyone dislikes the new monetization.
That's patently false.
Although to be fair I guess that's what CoD does every year. Hmm.
But Blizzard has been spending its goodwill for years. Ever since, I think, ever WoW expansion was worse and more pay-to-win than the last.
Except it's free to play
It's a bait and switch and the community is rightfully angry. If they wanted to make a f2p OW they could've released OW2 as a standalone, except they knew no one would have migrated so instead they killed the old one.
My understanding is that they shut down the OW1 servers after OW2 came out...
For me OW2 commits the same major sin that Warcraft 3 Reforged did. Replacing its predecessor with no option to play the older game as it was. I understand not wanting to split the community, but if someone doesn't like OW2's 5v5, or monetization, or whatever, their only option is to quit.
Also, given that OW2 made every cosmetic more expensive to acquire, it's only natural that people would draw comparisons and get mad.
There are some other good points in sibling comments, so I won't address those. The biggest problems I have are(in order):
1) It seems like they have moved from a Skill Based Match Making algorithm to an Engagement Optimized Matchmaker, or at least tipped the balance much farther away from skill based match-ups, and it really shows. Way too many games are a complete route one way or the other, and even in Competitive mode games are now often very uneven, where they used to be fairly balanced, and evidence suggests that they are using a stats based skill adjustment system rather than something like Elo that is based on wins. This would make using a non-skill based matchmaker for "Competitive" possible, and is evidenced by people getting placed in matches that have huge differentials in player rank even in metals ranks during primetime, something that virtually never happened in OW1 as far as I know.
This is really sad, and there is really a lack of awareness about these new systems and how, frankly, predatory the new generation matchmakers are. I've been playing competitive FPS(though often not competitively per se) for half my life and I'm rapidly being driven away from one of my favorite things. It's upsetting. Most people like winning, but when it constant feast or famine it really really really starts to feel like the games you win were just the MM giving you a win, and not earned.
2) They deleted a AAA, critically acclaimed, Game of the year winning game that everyone paid for, and replaced it with a buggy, janky F2P one. They removed a fair amount of content, and have had to disable 10% of the roster in the first 6 weeks because it's so buggy. They did add some content, 3 new heros and a handful of new maps, but it just barely balances out what they removed. And that speaks nothing to all of the other stuff that they removed from the UI, like Group finder. It also launched with some of the worst netcode I've seen in a non-indy game, players would briefly jump around the map before snapping back, extremely distracting in a game that is heavily based on tracking. OW1 never came close to this level of ineptness. Even today they announced a last minute delay to a balance patch that they have been promising for over a month, that was additionally supposed to re-enable a hero that has been part of the game since launch of OW1. Supposedly this is because the changes to a live service style, where they can easily adjust the game from the server side, which were-I guess-going to be a part of OW2, either weren't ready at launch or shipped in an unusable state.
But like, they could have launched OW2 as a F2P beta, and kept OW1 around until they had worked out the kinks, and then announced a sunset for OW1, or something they had already made it clear that OW1 was going to be replaced. Deleting a game that had an active playerbase of people who bought it and replacing it with a shittier, obviously half baked version, was a straight up dick move. Imagine if they did that to StarCraft when SC2 came out.
3) Meanwhile they removed one of the core features that got me to love Overwatch in the first place; it eschewed the "play to unlock" model that I have so learned to loathe as an adult, all heros and new ones were just part of the game. In OW2 new heros will be locked behind a battlepass. I have other problems with the F2P model, like it encouraging cheaters and low-investment players who don't know or care to learn to play a game that has significant depth around the cast of heroes(this is greatly magnified by the new Matchmaking which means that even someone who has >1000 hours will get in matches with them).
And to really rub the salt in the wound, they have been able to keep the new player shop filled with (shockingly expensive to this millennial) content. It absolutely feels like a cash grab at this point, especially considering today's patch delay(the second for this patch). It's also grimly foreshadowing that the hero that is currently disabled was only disabled because of an interaction with the hero that is currently locked behind the battlepass that let the new, locked hero get out of the play area and wreak havoc. Previously they would have handled it in reverse, especially considering the nature of the interaction (the new hero can teleport behind teammates).
The 2nd amendment exists because every human has a right to sacrifice themselves meaningfully to fight tyranny. Guns are a proxy for power, and the 2nd amendment says that citizens have a right to some power. Since citizens have a right to some power, our government cannot get too tyrannical because there would be consequences.
The right to unionize is the right to use the threat of force (collective bargaining) against tyrants (CEOs), exactly like the 2nd amendment is the right to use threat of force (use of guns) against tyrants (people who rule as kings).
Unions are the representation of the idea that employees should be able to exercise meaningful power over their CEOs, in particular to demand better wages and conditions.
Without collective bargaining, why would a CEO ever have to compromise or negotiate except with other CEOs? If multiple companies acted like a cartel, how would employees be able to fight that without collective bargaining?
Why are wages generally proportional to the job, and not proportional to a companies profits?
Just like in software, the structure can be sound, while the implementation is poor. I think a lot of the problems people have with unions are implementation detail problems rather than structural flaws.
We've seen this happen with public sector unions in various places, for example.
Despite the employees having quite safe and comfortable working conditions, despite them being quite well compensated, and despite them even being able to have some input (via voting) over who their bosses are, it's not uncommon for these sorts of unions to impose varying degrees of disruption just to try to get even more money or benefits out of already over-taxed societies.
These sorts of unions and their members never seem to care much about the negative effects that public transit, public education, and other artificial work disruptions/shutdowns may have on society at large.
Why does 1 union represent port workers on the entire eastern seaboard? Its a little absurd(USA has some of the least efficient ports in the world too...coincidence?).
This is such a hilarious idea. Any amount of citizens that unite together armed to inhibit the government's "tyrannical behavior" (read: against white people, the government has already been tyrannical for many decades to an absurd degree without retribution) will find out three facts:
1. We spend almost $2T a year on defense so much so that a small fraction of that defense given to a minor nation was able to completely and totally repel a world power.
2. We spend almost $220B a year on police, a portion of which is spent on cheap outdated parts manufactured with the above money.
3. Every adult american buying an AR-15 comes out to $400B.
Ultimately it is the shareholders who decide whether they want to stay invested in a business with a unionized labor force.
It's hard to follow though, because the Second Amendment has been held as an individual right (with some dissenting perspectives, of course), while unionization is inherently collective.
- you can have a gun, such that you'd be able to form a militia and fight government tyranny.
- you can advocate for collective bargaining, such that you'd be able to form a union and fight corporate tyranny.
This argument is very shaky. Aren't Hollywood films the product of union labour?
[EDIT] Incidentally, I think there's some interesting cross-over here between Hollywood and video games: it's my understanding that part (though only part) of why modern movies lean so heavily on CGI/VFX is that that's one of the only major parts of movie-making that's not very, very unionized, along with that industry's cousin and the topic of this article, video games. I'd expect that when one of those unionizes, the other won't be far behind.
I would argue that the product would only improve if it's harder to enter, but someone can have a 30 year career instead of a 5 year crunchfest. Who knows though.
The only way to get into the union is to be nominated by someone who is already in. The only way to get seen by those people is to work in adjacent jobs to acting, or get lucky and get on a small film with both union and non-union actors.
Once you're in the union it's great. It's a great example of how to form a union for creative people that mandates minimum pay and working conditions but no maximum, allowing for stars to get huge checks while making sure everyone gets good conditions and living wages.
About 10 seconds of googling would have told you that is wrong.
Actors union is a definite barrier to entry: you need to either be a notable independent actor/performer (rare), get a job on a SAG AFTRA because you have a talent that they can't find in union (rare), or show that you've worked in the field (non-union commercials/films) enough to be notable. Then you need to apply, pay $3k, pay ~$200 a year dues, and give up ~1.5% of all your contracts to the union. Then you can't take a non-union job (again restricting the talent pool).
I honestly don't see a ton of difference between the two: both establish choke points and collective bargaining in high demand fields to improve working conditions for the people that are in the union.
Acting, stage acting, not Hollywood, is actually where I'm most familiar with this through friends. If you want to be an actor, move to NYC, and try to find a role, you get sent to the back of the line at every audition and probably they don't even get to you. There was another way in (this may be outdated now) where you got points towards joining by working for certain employers. That's why some of my friends played characters for an abusive boss at a now defunct space travel theme restaurant - just for points to join the union
Planet Hollywood?
When I started in the industry I couldn't afford a bed on my salary for about a year, and I only got my "in" by having a lot of experience doing indie development during high school and college - many people don't have the free time and resources to build up that portfolio.
Though, it might be easy for me to say this, because I naturally delineate my passion from my paycheck.
I'm trying to figure out how else to interpret "move to other areas of the industry".
Unions are fine, but can take a long time. In the meanwhile individual action is still available.
Just like individuals are free to boycott certain nations products or services before official sanctions are put into place. Sanctions(unions) would have a larger impact, but people still have options before that happens.
An important point here is that the skills are easily transferrable to other areas of the tech world. It's not like asking a carpenter to become a metalworker.
The fix is to fix the workplaces.
Source: When I quit game dev, I got a 60% raise and I was on the higher end of the pay scale at that game dev job. I know lead developers with nearly 10 years of experience making under 70k in games. I frequently offer them roles that would double their salary and they turn it down because they like working in games.
The game developer could just move out to the suburbs and commute alongside the construction worker (construction happens downtown[1], and those workers sure as shit aren't living anywhere nearby).
1 - Pick your major city.
You don't just get to go to new places just because you are a construction worker. I think you might be viewing it through a somewhat romantic lens.
Here in DC, teachers earn more the closer to the city they work and typically live further out than they work to save on housing.
Software is a bit of an anomaly here - some of the best paying jobs are out on the edge of the suburbs because that’s where AOL and Network Solutions and several other “OG” dot-coms were started. And AWS, Google, and others have since opened offices nearby.
The pay, especially at studios, is very low by software engineering standards (only embedded is worse) and people can and constantly are hurt at the job. Divorces, alcoholism, and burnout are so common in the industry that they are just accepted and joked about. And I've seen real burnout. Like not being able to read properly after a couple all nighters, anxiety disorders from pagerduty, becoming fully despondent. Mental work is still work and overwork is still hurtful.
My daughter has special needs, and we want to send her to a nearby public school. But the school isn’t in our district. So we have to pay for private school.
Teachers unions fought tooth and nail to prevent cross district enrollment using arguments from the 19th century.
We call it the "Warner Brothers' Law"
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-propose...
The actual law: https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2010/0120/latest/whol...
It seems like that is the inevitable result of any successful creator(s) they labor out of love and a joy for what they make and then once they get big enough MBA, managerial types, that are focused on metrics and numbers come in and like a parasite feed on the success of those who labored for love before eventually leaving it an unrecognizable bloated rotting carcass of it's former self.
Is there anyway to build something successfully that contributes to the world without it being subsumed by management culture?
[1]: Obviously not Kotick and the rest of the scum, who not only tolerated but even engaged in the "alleged" instances of all manners of abuse for years. I actually wouldn't mind if they provided themselves as kindling on that corporate bonfire after having their golden parachutes cut away to pay damages/"reparations" to their victims.
[2]: ie. with at least a background in games development, not how to best financially screw their workers.