[chronotis]

When I worked at Blizzard at the beginning of the decade, it was the first "corporation" I'd worked at where I sincerely felt and believed that the espoused values were authentically reflected in decisions and actions. The edges were starting to fray a little bit around 2012-13, as veterans of the original Blizzard slowly began moving on to other things (or retiring altogether).

There followed a steady trickle of Activision staff into the holes left by the departed, which IMHO was also reflected in gradual shifts in recruiting practices. Morhaime's departure was the final farewell. I can't say what Blizzard's culture is today, but I'm confident that Every Voice Matters isn't what it used to be.

[Sysreq1]

I worked there from about 2008 to 2014, and definitely noticed the same thing. Once the core guys started to leave, and teams started to ballon in size, you could tell that the magic was gone. For me, Diablo 3 was really the turning point. Despite clear polish and triple A quality, it lacked the same soul that the predecessors had.

[Sohcahtoa82]

A couple months ago, a recruiter working for Activision-Blizzard contacted me about a potential job. I responded that when I was working for my CS degree, I had dreams of working for Blizzard. But then earlier this year they announced laying off 800 people immediately after also announcing record profits, and said that doesn't sit well with me and I have no interest working for them.

The recruiter responded with something about being able to understand that perspective. I probably burned a bridge, but I don't really care.

The old "Blizzard" has been gone for years, another company ruined by greed.

[vvanders]

Yeah, as an ex-gamedev as well there's a large divide between the values a devshop tends to hold and the publisher that finances your project. I've yet to see a studio acqui-hire that doesn't eventually head south as the publishing culture seeps into the previously independent company.

[SeanBoocock]

You say that as if that is always a top down transformation, and not the result of entrepreneurial founders losing motivation or leaving after a lockup period. Regardless of cultural differences or how the transition is handled, the fact that a studio is no longer an independent entity affects how you view your work and how much value you can extract from a commercial success.

There are some high profile examples of studio acquisitions I’ve had insight into where the publisher has been blamed for perceived changes in a studio’s output post-acquisition. The reality on the ground was almost the inverse: the publisher gave the acquired studio a great amount of autonomy and runway, even more than than internal studios, and the acquired studio struggled in an environment where they had relatively more freedom than they did pre-acquisition. It let bad habits fester and poor managers calcify in roles they never could have survived in during scrappier times.

[vvanders]

Transitions are hard, and I'm sure there's definitely that failure case.

However if you look at EA and the acquire/in-house cycle they go through every 4-5 years, there's no way you can hope to be stable under those circumstances. Ditto Microsoft and the 2-3 cycles they went through with similar disasters.

Fundamentally the two types of companies have different goals which drive their culture. Publishers exist to make money, pure and simple. They diversify risk by supporting multiple developers but at the end of the day they want to see growth and cash. A developer on the other hand may be happy staying mostly cash-neutral as long as it keeps them afloat to keep creating the art/experience that drives them.

I'd argue that those two cultures are at distinct odds(based on what I saw play out when I was in the industry) and trying to merge them leads to disaster.

[dickeytk]

As an outsider not following this too closely, it reminds me of what happened with Boeing and McDonnell Douglas[0]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/11/boeing...