I was sitting in front of my computer this morning, unable to take my eyes off of my desktop wallpaper that I put up a couple days ago. It's a screenshot from what I assume is the Wandering Isle, although it could be from anywhere I suppose. I really don't know, but it doesn't really matter. Anyhoo, it's a picture of a Pandaren on a hill looking over a hill of blossoming trees. The colors of green and pink and blue are wonderfully contrasting and provide a sort of serenity to my mind. I wonder what that Pandaren is thinking? Happy and hoping for a fruitful season? Or maybe he's glad to get away from the onslaught of new Pandarens appearing in their new world (whereas from our perspective it's players testing out the beta in the new starting area). The picture reminds me of someone telling their boss, or significant other, or parent, or co-worker that they were glad to be able to get away last weekend, that the disconnect from real life was a life saver and they are back and recharged and ready to start fresh.
How nice. But this happy-go-lucky story is not about THAT sort of disconnect, no, I'd like to mention something on the disconnect between those in charge of giving yet another expansion to explore and the gamers exploring that expansion.
The stark and obvious disconnect reared its ugly head the morning people realized that MoP beta was open and ready for play. People commenting around the interwebsnetses, complaining that even though they had signed up for the now infamous Annual Pass, they had not yet received their beta invite. Conversely could be seen Blizzard's famous "blues" attempting to quell fears and reassure everyone that all worthy and eligible for invites would receive them in due time.
So who's to blame? Who's at fault? Must there be a guilty party or is this just a case of innocent miscommunication?
Ok, so I thought about it and came to this conclusion...everyone's at fault. Disconnects happen when people don't honestly strive to understand what the other is trying to communicate. I think, and appropriately enough Confucius helps us out there, that the following explains things nicely:
"If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything."
—Confucius
Blizzard's responsibility in this disconnect is important, because even up through the media event of a couple weeks ago, they did not share their plan of how and when they would let people into the beta. It's possible they did have a plan, in which case they really did a poor job at detailing that plan to everyone else. It's also possible that they didn't have a plan, which would be worse since they would simply rely on hubris to WILL a plan together when the need presented itself. Problem was, the need existed a while ago and their language wasn't very clear.
Players are equally lacking in that there were too many who refused patience or who did not properly express their expectations in advance. Or if they did express their expectations in advance, upon realizing that they didn't get what they wanted the second they wanted it resorted to "unproductive" language, usually made up of frustration or anger or severe displeasure.
The media covering all this wasn't any help either. I don't know how many interviews I read that came out of the media event, but there weren't too many difficult questions, probably because they were all afraid of not being part of the "in crowd" for future events. When Blizzard higher-ups stated that they hadn't worked out a plan as to how to get people into beta, whey were there not follow up questions like "Why don't you already have a plan? Don't you think your investors would want you to plan for things this big in advance? Do you really believe that people will just blindly follow because you hold all the power and the gamers are without recourse? A multi-million dollar company, on the verge of one of their largest beta releases, and still no plan? What exactly are you doing over there in your cubicle or office?"
As one of those players, it would have been nice to have the media express my voice instead of giggling their way through interview questions my 9 year old son could come up with. Then why as a player did I not hold these media outlets, these large and popular blogs, responsible for their less than informative behavior? I think the answer to all of this is a jaded one on my part, I think that people enjoy being satisfied with something on one hand, but still allow themselves the freedom to criticize what's in the other. It leaves us, as people, in a position of power. Players hate feeling dictated to, so we speak out, often using incorrect and unproductive language in the process. The big business strategizes and contemplates then acts in a manner they believe will be most profitable for their businesses. Media acts much like businesses, but allows themselves freedom to act like they are allied with the player-base, that way they do their business and placate the players at the same time.
All the while there is a terrible disconnect. Players don't understand all the motives of the developer/business, and the business doesn't have to always capitulate to the players. But we don't understand each other sometimes not because we are incapable, but because we're unwilling. A business doensn't want to lose business, and a player doesn't want to feel like their investment of time and money into a game has been wasted. So we often find ourselves in the same place, probably more often than we like to admit. But we all seem to like it there. It's where we're comfortable.
I, for one, asked myself these things ever since Blizz Con, wondering about the plan to grant access to one of if not the largest betas ever, but since I was self-disconnected from the world I kept all these things to myself. But now I am speaking up again, wondering if the disconnect will ever go away, or if this is how it will always be?
As always I hope for the best, but expect more of the same.
Showing posts with label Business. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Business. Show all posts
Monday, March 26, 2012
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
It's Not Personal, It's Business...Final Part III
Just a few more thoughts on the business of games and the business of business. I caution myself first, then anyone else that reads this, to not be too harsh in our judgements of the decisions businesses make for the sake of profits. It's very difficult to truly know the motives in the hearts of people who run any business, Blizzard included. Actions do speak volumes, and we have the right to study those actions and applaud or criticize them. I just don't want to jump to too many damning conclusions where I am not part of that decision making process.
I worked at a mortgage company once, and we literally went out of business overnight. Better said, we were told one day that we might be out of business the next day, but things had been brewing for a long time before. To defend my fellow accounting/finance co-workers, we flagged many things long in advance and yet ownership continued to make choices to boost short-term profitability. But they failed to see the long-term consequences of their choices. Hence, the apparent over-night shutdown and loss of over 1,000 jobs. Tragedy.
Whether it be Blizzard (ATVI), Trion, or any other game developer out there, decisions are made for both short-term profit and long-term viability. At the same time, there is an effort (which is often the subject of criticism) to make MMORPG's that people enjoy and have long-term viability. I think as a business, Blizzard does things that are ethical and fair, for they were the ones who created World of Warcraft. They created what has become the world's most successful MMO, so at some point in time they did something that gamers enjoyed. I believe they also include things in WoW that are time-consumingly addictive, and take away from my personal definition of enjoyment (such as daily quest grinding, etc). It's a bit manipulative, but it's also an accepted practice within the industry, and from a business point of view is acceptable but can be construed by some outsiders/consumers as leaning towards the unethical.
The way I see it, we're all greedy. Sure, I guess we can sit here and say that all these businesses want is to squeeze us for all we got, but we can't blame any corporation (MMO developer or other) for our choices to purchase and consume the product(s) being offered. Gamers are greedy too. It seems that we want the "perfect" game, and if not perfect, then at least on the path to exceptional.
Webster's defines greed as: "A selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed."
What is need? I guarantee you that there are currently 6 billion different definition of this word on planet earth. When somebody outside of ourselves exceeds some imaginary limit that we place on need, we label them greedy. Is it not possible that the person making money has a different idea of what "need" is? But often we don't care about that, because when our own personal threshold is exceeded, in our minds we classify the excess as greed, and we take it personally.
I don't need games in my life, but I enjoy them. Enough to pay for them. Enough to place value in them because I choose to spend part of my life playing them. I have my reasons, and I think they are good enough. Others may disagree with me and think I'm greedy for wanting to play games when I could be feeding the homeless. Well I sure don't want people judging me for my supposed greed; this is why I am careful at casually labeling business people, and especially MMO and other gaming companies as greedy, because I'm sure that there are good people at these companies who really do want to just make a good game, and to be judged harshly by people who don't know what's in my heart would seem to me unfair.
I don't think I'll ever write again on the business of game developers. Unless, of course, they try the crap that Blizzard tried with revealing my real name or something like that. I think it's fair to criticize the products these developers are sending to the market. It's fair to bash them if they suck, and praise them for the good they offer. I think it's fair to complain when and if we discover that a company will pursue a policy that leads to profit when they openly and knowingly (internally) are manipulating people with addictive material (like the tobacco companies).
But I think we need to understand when to separate the business from the personal. People conduct business, it's how most of the world survives and thrives, because somebody started a business. So the concept of business should not be demonized. But it's our right as consumers to monitor businesses, to demand that they follow the laws of the land governing them, and to hope for good products to consume. It's also our right as consumers to NOT consume them, if the product isn't to our satisfaction. Remember, they don't make money if we don't pay. If nobody bought the Sparkle Pony, they wouldn't keep selling them or other vanity mounts and items.
We have the power to change the industry we consume. Keep using your voice, or your imagination, or knowledge, and even expectations to change the game. Don't buy into those things that you view as manipulative or out to get more from your pocket out of "greed". Don't rush to judgement, unless you're willing to be judged unfaily yourself. Even though there is greed, there is also honest dealings by good business people, and it would be in all of our best interest to find and support those developers who have good intentions, who we are willing to support by spending our hard earned money on their products.
After all, business is not just business...it's personal!
I worked at a mortgage company once, and we literally went out of business overnight. Better said, we were told one day that we might be out of business the next day, but things had been brewing for a long time before. To defend my fellow accounting/finance co-workers, we flagged many things long in advance and yet ownership continued to make choices to boost short-term profitability. But they failed to see the long-term consequences of their choices. Hence, the apparent over-night shutdown and loss of over 1,000 jobs. Tragedy.
Whether it be Blizzard (ATVI), Trion, or any other game developer out there, decisions are made for both short-term profit and long-term viability. At the same time, there is an effort (which is often the subject of criticism) to make MMORPG's that people enjoy and have long-term viability. I think as a business, Blizzard does things that are ethical and fair, for they were the ones who created World of Warcraft. They created what has become the world's most successful MMO, so at some point in time they did something that gamers enjoyed. I believe they also include things in WoW that are time-consumingly addictive, and take away from my personal definition of enjoyment (such as daily quest grinding, etc). It's a bit manipulative, but it's also an accepted practice within the industry, and from a business point of view is acceptable but can be construed by some outsiders/consumers as leaning towards the unethical.
The way I see it, we're all greedy. Sure, I guess we can sit here and say that all these businesses want is to squeeze us for all we got, but we can't blame any corporation (MMO developer or other) for our choices to purchase and consume the product(s) being offered. Gamers are greedy too. It seems that we want the "perfect" game, and if not perfect, then at least on the path to exceptional.
Webster's defines greed as: "A selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed."
What is need? I guarantee you that there are currently 6 billion different definition of this word on planet earth. When somebody outside of ourselves exceeds some imaginary limit that we place on need, we label them greedy. Is it not possible that the person making money has a different idea of what "need" is? But often we don't care about that, because when our own personal threshold is exceeded, in our minds we classify the excess as greed, and we take it personally.
I don't need games in my life, but I enjoy them. Enough to pay for them. Enough to place value in them because I choose to spend part of my life playing them. I have my reasons, and I think they are good enough. Others may disagree with me and think I'm greedy for wanting to play games when I could be feeding the homeless. Well I sure don't want people judging me for my supposed greed; this is why I am careful at casually labeling business people, and especially MMO and other gaming companies as greedy, because I'm sure that there are good people at these companies who really do want to just make a good game, and to be judged harshly by people who don't know what's in my heart would seem to me unfair.
I don't think I'll ever write again on the business of game developers. Unless, of course, they try the crap that Blizzard tried with revealing my real name or something like that. I think it's fair to criticize the products these developers are sending to the market. It's fair to bash them if they suck, and praise them for the good they offer. I think it's fair to complain when and if we discover that a company will pursue a policy that leads to profit when they openly and knowingly (internally) are manipulating people with addictive material (like the tobacco companies).
But I think we need to understand when to separate the business from the personal. People conduct business, it's how most of the world survives and thrives, because somebody started a business. So the concept of business should not be demonized. But it's our right as consumers to monitor businesses, to demand that they follow the laws of the land governing them, and to hope for good products to consume. It's also our right as consumers to NOT consume them, if the product isn't to our satisfaction. Remember, they don't make money if we don't pay. If nobody bought the Sparkle Pony, they wouldn't keep selling them or other vanity mounts and items.
We have the power to change the industry we consume. Keep using your voice, or your imagination, or knowledge, and even expectations to change the game. Don't buy into those things that you view as manipulative or out to get more from your pocket out of "greed". Don't rush to judgement, unless you're willing to be judged unfaily yourself. Even though there is greed, there is also honest dealings by good business people, and it would be in all of our best interest to find and support those developers who have good intentions, who we are willing to support by spending our hard earned money on their products.
After all, business is not just business...it's personal!
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
It's Not Personal, It's Business...Part II
One of the world's leaders in economics and business once said:
"...businesses have a right to make money. How they make it, though becomes a discussion of ethics, something sorely lacking in many megacorps nowadays."
Actually, Stubborn pointed that out in the comments from Part I, I thought I'd start with that because this is precisely what I wanted to discuss in Part II, the "HOW" part of the money making equation.
Politics
I hate politics. Per MY definition, politics is a series of lies, perpetuated by people with enough money to make a sign or poster with their face on it, and spread by the mindless mass slaves of irrational thought called "you and me", for the purpose of granting more power and influence to those who probably shouldn't have a driver's license to begin with.
Politics play into MMORPG's, really they do. Not only those elected officials that set some of the ground rules for doing business in this or any other country, but the politics that occur within a business. In my personal life, I've worked very hard to distance myself from office politics. It never, I repeat, it never ends up how you want it to and almost always puts you in a position where you must make a decision that either goes against your personal values or potentially loss of employment. The reason is simple, I hate politics. It's the grandstanding, it's the deception, it's the power grabs, it's the complete disregard for others and the epitome of self-gratification. Some like it, some are really good at it, I am not one of those. Sure, I am selfish, but aren't we all, so let's move on.
For a moment let's pretend that we are.../gasp...mature. People start and run business, and while the business entity is not of itself evil or immoral or unethical, people who control them can be sometimes. Office and business politics places people in positions where they choose an ethical path or not. In my comments in Part I, I described a situation that actually happened at a place I used to work. If the idea of deferred commission is new to you, it's basically where an employer will hold back a part of a commission (gross salary) due to someone on their staff, usually an independent contractor working for the employer, and use those funds to pay for things like golf club membership fees and many types of other, expensive and fun things. Why? So that the independent contractor effectively has a lower gross income, thereby lessening their tax liability.
This is unethical, but creative methods are often used to cover up accounts such as these. Politics came into play the moment the independent contractor requested this arrangement. In my situation, this employee brought a lot of business into the company, and they felt it acceptable to give the ultimatum to the owner: "Set up this deferred commission account for me or I'll find somewhere else that will". Leverage, that's what they used to get their way, but the question is, should a company give in to their top salespeople and committ either unethical or illegal actions in order to maintain a desired revenue stream and resulting profits?
In business the answer is simple...DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO KEEP YOUR BEST PEOPLE...WHATEVER IT TAKES!!!
It may seem that the ethical choice is the easy one, but my experience and observations prove otherwise. In fact, most owners/managers of business often will make many, many unethical (yet legal) choices in order to get or keep business and revenues. It's so rampant in business, in fact, that it seems to have become the norm. The problem with ethics is that unlike laws, they are not written down. Not only that, due to people's various upbringings in different cultures, religions, etc there is not one set of unwritten "right vs wrong" rules to be followed. To be perfectly honest, I find it difficult to make too many judgements on businesses whose practices may be unethical, because there truly is a posibility that my values are not their values, and in their eyes they are doing nothing wrong.
There are some consistencies, however. Most everyone believes it's unethical to lie in business. Also it's not ethical to spy on other businesses, in fact there are laws governing corporate spying, so maybe that's not a good example. But something like greed is difficult to measure. Is greed unethical? Is is illegal? I don't think it is, but it's what greed leads people to do, such as lie, that most have a problem with.
Politics in business are always messy. One person putting another in a compromising situation, forcing them to make a choice that may or may not be ethical and may even be illegal. But when it comes down to it, somebody in a position of power needs to do make a decision and then live with the consequences.
Choices in Management
I do wonder what the discussions were like when Blizzard was pondering the release of the Sparkle Pony. I wasn't there but I guarantee you that a financial analysis was done, as well as a marketing one as well that provided the research and evidence that if offered to the players there would be enough to buy it that the venture would be profitable. Consequently, many other companies who engage in the new trend of micro-transactions, didn't decide to offer them on a whim, but because research and analysis showed that it would be a profitable venture.
It's the same reason there have been many WoW immitations, because research and analysis showed that if they adhered to certain guidelines, they too could potentially be profitable. But why does a manager/owner make the decisions he/she does?
It's profit based, guaranteed.
Everyone thinks they know how to run a business. More than that, everyone thinks they know more than the next guy about business in general. Every MMORPG developer, their managers and owners have this one thing in common...EGO. I love to draw mazes, and I think that I am really, really good at it. So good, in fact, that I have bragged about it many times to many different people, like I am now. Now I know that I am not the best in the world, but I know that if I really wanted to, I could make a book of mazes and sell it, and hope to make a profit from it.
Like me, these CEO's and CFO have huge egos. They all think that they are so good that their choices are always the best. They think they are so ingenious that even though an idea here or there may fail, if they keep at it their genious will shine through and they will have the profitable financial statements to prove it. I'm sure there have been many CEO's of gaming companies who have produced failures, but who believed during development that the game would be a success. Why would they publish a game if they believed it sucked? They wouldn't, and it's because they all believe in their skills to produce products that will sell.
There are no rational developers, no rational managers, no rational business owners. They all think they are good at what they do, if they didn't they probably wouldn't have their job. Ego, however, tends to leads people to make certain choices, and often it comes across as a "greedy" choice. Over time I'm beginning to think that all business is greed. People want to make money, so they become part of a business. If you don't want to make money, join the peace corps or something. I'm trying to say that's it's difficult to define greed when ALL business is about making money.
Is there a specific amount of money that one can make before it becomes wrong? How much is too much? Seriously, what is the cut off point? One million profit? Ten million? One billion? There must be some reason why we call businessmen greedy, and I wonder how that's defined. Money, profits, greed, all these things are accepted in the business world. Hurting people is generally frowned upon, and there are many legal remedies for various types of harm one inflicts on another. But I've been around in the business world enough to know that greed is not viewed as unethical within the business circles. It's a label of negativity only directed by outsiders.
I would bet all I have (which isn't much right now) that Blizzard's belief internally is not one of "how can we screw the player", rather "how can we create a game that is good and profitable". Unfortunately the consumer takes his gaming personally; he/she is, after all, giving of their personal funds and time to a game and expect gratification in return. When the player, however, realizes that he's viewed as a means to an end [i.e. "profit"], of course the player will take it personally. The usual response is to call a company like Blizzard greedy, interested only in appeasing their investor base. The player feels used.
No wonder there is a growing animosity in the community, people feel used and not gratified to their standards. And yet, isn't that a bit greedy on the part of the player? Who says you have the right to play the perfect game? Who says you have the right to be viewed as anything but a paying customer? I'm not advocating the thought, I'm simply offering a counter argument.
Where I try to make sense but fail
Politics put people in positions of compromise (personal compromise or legal compromise). Choices are made from management's ego, not necessarily the greed center of their brain. I want to say somthing that I believe personally, because sometimes I may write something I don't believe but I feel both sides deserve a defense:
I believe in greed, and I believe it's wrong. I do not put a dollar amount on it, however, and I don't believe that 5 billion in profits is greedy. I believe what the CEO/CFO/COO does with their annual 100 Million bonus measures their level of greed. I also believe that any time a business attempts illegal and/or untehical accounting practices, that is borne of ego AND greed, and should be brought to light and the individual replaced by someone who won't be easily pushed around, someone who wants to make money by following the laws and not by offering "deferred commissions" to their employees.
I do not believe, however, that offering a Sparkle Pony is greedy, I think it's manipulative. Why? Because if research shows that people are dumb enough to pay stupid amounts of money for a "vanity item", it's a business simply taking advantage of the tendencies of the person. Psychology is important in business research, and is used extensively in MMO's to get people to play and to STAY.
I live in Las Vegas, where Casinos all over bring you in to darkened rooms with no clocks, with lots of noises and bells going off to make people believe there are other people winning all the time. I see how businesses manipulate people because of psychological research, and use it to profit from it. I believe this is wrong. The problem we face is, not only with MMORPG developers, but with all business, that if you use knowledge to gain an advantage and profit from it you, as a business are doing nothing wrong. Therefore, by extension, Blizzard and other developers don't believe they are doing anything wrong by using addictive behavior to keep people playing, they do nothing different than Vegas casinos in that respect.
The kicker is, businesses are run by people, which means that more and more people don't view it as unethical to manipulate others to keep using a substandard product, as long as everyone makes money, nobody is doing anything wrong. So, what the heck are we doing compaining about it when chances are some day we will be sucked into the business world in order to support our families, then support our addictions, then just to support our greed? Seriously, why bother fighting for a system, for games that we really, really would love to play, if sooner or later we'll be managing a business and make choices for the sake of profit?
Because if you have read this far in this post there is a part of you that believes that we, as people, can be better. We can choose to NOT manipulate others into buying our product, that there is a way to do business in an honest manner and provide a product that people love. I'm a cynic sometimes, but I pull myself out by being an idealist at other times. I believe you CAN do business honestly and ethically. I believe that you can AND SHOULD BE ABLE TO make a lot of money in the process. And I believe that it's that kind of person who will take their annual bonus and use it to help people, or to invent and innovate to create something that will be good, clean, worthwhile fun to people.
I think we should slow down on labeling people as greedy, it may just be that they are so egotistical, that greed doesn't enter the equation, they actually believe they are better at what they do than everyone else, even if they're not.
And despite what I said about politics, go vote anyway. Sooner or later there's got to be somebody not totally corrupt. Someday...maybe.
And oh, keep speaking up and demanding a better product. It will happen!!
"...businesses have a right to make money. How they make it, though becomes a discussion of ethics, something sorely lacking in many megacorps nowadays."
Actually, Stubborn pointed that out in the comments from Part I, I thought I'd start with that because this is precisely what I wanted to discuss in Part II, the "HOW" part of the money making equation.
Politics
I hate politics. Per MY definition, politics is a series of lies, perpetuated by people with enough money to make a sign or poster with their face on it, and spread by the mindless mass slaves of irrational thought called "you and me", for the purpose of granting more power and influence to those who probably shouldn't have a driver's license to begin with.
Politics play into MMORPG's, really they do. Not only those elected officials that set some of the ground rules for doing business in this or any other country, but the politics that occur within a business. In my personal life, I've worked very hard to distance myself from office politics. It never, I repeat, it never ends up how you want it to and almost always puts you in a position where you must make a decision that either goes against your personal values or potentially loss of employment. The reason is simple, I hate politics. It's the grandstanding, it's the deception, it's the power grabs, it's the complete disregard for others and the epitome of self-gratification. Some like it, some are really good at it, I am not one of those. Sure, I am selfish, but aren't we all, so let's move on.
For a moment let's pretend that we are.../gasp...mature. People start and run business, and while the business entity is not of itself evil or immoral or unethical, people who control them can be sometimes. Office and business politics places people in positions where they choose an ethical path or not. In my comments in Part I, I described a situation that actually happened at a place I used to work. If the idea of deferred commission is new to you, it's basically where an employer will hold back a part of a commission (gross salary) due to someone on their staff, usually an independent contractor working for the employer, and use those funds to pay for things like golf club membership fees and many types of other, expensive and fun things. Why? So that the independent contractor effectively has a lower gross income, thereby lessening their tax liability.
This is unethical, but creative methods are often used to cover up accounts such as these. Politics came into play the moment the independent contractor requested this arrangement. In my situation, this employee brought a lot of business into the company, and they felt it acceptable to give the ultimatum to the owner: "Set up this deferred commission account for me or I'll find somewhere else that will". Leverage, that's what they used to get their way, but the question is, should a company give in to their top salespeople and committ either unethical or illegal actions in order to maintain a desired revenue stream and resulting profits?
In business the answer is simple...DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO KEEP YOUR BEST PEOPLE...WHATEVER IT TAKES!!!
It may seem that the ethical choice is the easy one, but my experience and observations prove otherwise. In fact, most owners/managers of business often will make many, many unethical (yet legal) choices in order to get or keep business and revenues. It's so rampant in business, in fact, that it seems to have become the norm. The problem with ethics is that unlike laws, they are not written down. Not only that, due to people's various upbringings in different cultures, religions, etc there is not one set of unwritten "right vs wrong" rules to be followed. To be perfectly honest, I find it difficult to make too many judgements on businesses whose practices may be unethical, because there truly is a posibility that my values are not their values, and in their eyes they are doing nothing wrong.
There are some consistencies, however. Most everyone believes it's unethical to lie in business. Also it's not ethical to spy on other businesses, in fact there are laws governing corporate spying, so maybe that's not a good example. But something like greed is difficult to measure. Is greed unethical? Is is illegal? I don't think it is, but it's what greed leads people to do, such as lie, that most have a problem with.
Politics in business are always messy. One person putting another in a compromising situation, forcing them to make a choice that may or may not be ethical and may even be illegal. But when it comes down to it, somebody in a position of power needs to do make a decision and then live with the consequences.
Choices in Management
I do wonder what the discussions were like when Blizzard was pondering the release of the Sparkle Pony. I wasn't there but I guarantee you that a financial analysis was done, as well as a marketing one as well that provided the research and evidence that if offered to the players there would be enough to buy it that the venture would be profitable. Consequently, many other companies who engage in the new trend of micro-transactions, didn't decide to offer them on a whim, but because research and analysis showed that it would be a profitable venture.
It's the same reason there have been many WoW immitations, because research and analysis showed that if they adhered to certain guidelines, they too could potentially be profitable. But why does a manager/owner make the decisions he/she does?
It's profit based, guaranteed.
Everyone thinks they know how to run a business. More than that, everyone thinks they know more than the next guy about business in general. Every MMORPG developer, their managers and owners have this one thing in common...EGO. I love to draw mazes, and I think that I am really, really good at it. So good, in fact, that I have bragged about it many times to many different people, like I am now. Now I know that I am not the best in the world, but I know that if I really wanted to, I could make a book of mazes and sell it, and hope to make a profit from it.
Like me, these CEO's and CFO have huge egos. They all think that they are so good that their choices are always the best. They think they are so ingenious that even though an idea here or there may fail, if they keep at it their genious will shine through and they will have the profitable financial statements to prove it. I'm sure there have been many CEO's of gaming companies who have produced failures, but who believed during development that the game would be a success. Why would they publish a game if they believed it sucked? They wouldn't, and it's because they all believe in their skills to produce products that will sell.
There are no rational developers, no rational managers, no rational business owners. They all think they are good at what they do, if they didn't they probably wouldn't have their job. Ego, however, tends to leads people to make certain choices, and often it comes across as a "greedy" choice. Over time I'm beginning to think that all business is greed. People want to make money, so they become part of a business. If you don't want to make money, join the peace corps or something. I'm trying to say that's it's difficult to define greed when ALL business is about making money.
Is there a specific amount of money that one can make before it becomes wrong? How much is too much? Seriously, what is the cut off point? One million profit? Ten million? One billion? There must be some reason why we call businessmen greedy, and I wonder how that's defined. Money, profits, greed, all these things are accepted in the business world. Hurting people is generally frowned upon, and there are many legal remedies for various types of harm one inflicts on another. But I've been around in the business world enough to know that greed is not viewed as unethical within the business circles. It's a label of negativity only directed by outsiders.
I would bet all I have (which isn't much right now) that Blizzard's belief internally is not one of "how can we screw the player", rather "how can we create a game that is good and profitable". Unfortunately the consumer takes his gaming personally; he/she is, after all, giving of their personal funds and time to a game and expect gratification in return. When the player, however, realizes that he's viewed as a means to an end [i.e. "profit"], of course the player will take it personally. The usual response is to call a company like Blizzard greedy, interested only in appeasing their investor base. The player feels used.
No wonder there is a growing animosity in the community, people feel used and not gratified to their standards. And yet, isn't that a bit greedy on the part of the player? Who says you have the right to play the perfect game? Who says you have the right to be viewed as anything but a paying customer? I'm not advocating the thought, I'm simply offering a counter argument.
Where I try to make sense but fail
Politics put people in positions of compromise (personal compromise or legal compromise). Choices are made from management's ego, not necessarily the greed center of their brain. I want to say somthing that I believe personally, because sometimes I may write something I don't believe but I feel both sides deserve a defense:
I believe in greed, and I believe it's wrong. I do not put a dollar amount on it, however, and I don't believe that 5 billion in profits is greedy. I believe what the CEO/CFO/COO does with their annual 100 Million bonus measures their level of greed. I also believe that any time a business attempts illegal and/or untehical accounting practices, that is borne of ego AND greed, and should be brought to light and the individual replaced by someone who won't be easily pushed around, someone who wants to make money by following the laws and not by offering "deferred commissions" to their employees.
I do not believe, however, that offering a Sparkle Pony is greedy, I think it's manipulative. Why? Because if research shows that people are dumb enough to pay stupid amounts of money for a "vanity item", it's a business simply taking advantage of the tendencies of the person. Psychology is important in business research, and is used extensively in MMO's to get people to play and to STAY.
I live in Las Vegas, where Casinos all over bring you in to darkened rooms with no clocks, with lots of noises and bells going off to make people believe there are other people winning all the time. I see how businesses manipulate people because of psychological research, and use it to profit from it. I believe this is wrong. The problem we face is, not only with MMORPG developers, but with all business, that if you use knowledge to gain an advantage and profit from it you, as a business are doing nothing wrong. Therefore, by extension, Blizzard and other developers don't believe they are doing anything wrong by using addictive behavior to keep people playing, they do nothing different than Vegas casinos in that respect.
The kicker is, businesses are run by people, which means that more and more people don't view it as unethical to manipulate others to keep using a substandard product, as long as everyone makes money, nobody is doing anything wrong. So, what the heck are we doing compaining about it when chances are some day we will be sucked into the business world in order to support our families, then support our addictions, then just to support our greed? Seriously, why bother fighting for a system, for games that we really, really would love to play, if sooner or later we'll be managing a business and make choices for the sake of profit?
Because if you have read this far in this post there is a part of you that believes that we, as people, can be better. We can choose to NOT manipulate others into buying our product, that there is a way to do business in an honest manner and provide a product that people love. I'm a cynic sometimes, but I pull myself out by being an idealist at other times. I believe you CAN do business honestly and ethically. I believe that you can AND SHOULD BE ABLE TO make a lot of money in the process. And I believe that it's that kind of person who will take their annual bonus and use it to help people, or to invent and innovate to create something that will be good, clean, worthwhile fun to people.
I think we should slow down on labeling people as greedy, it may just be that they are so egotistical, that greed doesn't enter the equation, they actually believe they are better at what they do than everyone else, even if they're not.
And despite what I said about politics, go vote anyway. Sooner or later there's got to be somebody not totally corrupt. Someday...maybe.
And oh, keep speaking up and demanding a better product. It will happen!!
Monday, June 27, 2011
It's Not Personal, It's Business...Part I
There's nothing wrong with somebody wanting to make money. All motive or context aside, there's nothing wrong with it. There's nothing wrong for a game maker wanting to make money on the game(s) he/she makes. The problem, I have observed, is with the consumer.
I've been thinking a lot lately, a lot more than writing, given that I've been unemployed for seven months now barely making rent. Some of you who may know my history of back trouble and my insurance company's absolute refusal to approve my much needed treatment (because, according to them, I don't match the criteria 100% that would merit the kind of treatment I seek...i.e. "It's a business decision, we need to save money where we can by enforcing our policies strictly...it's nothing against you personally"). Anyway, where was I. Oh yes, so knowing my issues with my insurance company it may seem odd when I stand by a businesses right to, yes, make money and place that as priority.
I've witnessed and observed a lot, from childhood until now. I've gone to college and have many, many years as a financial professional under my belt, so I believe I'm quite quailified to speak on something such as business. Of course, even the college kid who took a Bus 101 course and 20 political science courses by a professor extolling the virtues of communism can also have an opinion, it's just that I think we'll disagree on some points.
Getting back on topic, I have noticed a general tone throughout the blogging community over the past year growing sentiments against game makers for not producing better gaming experiences due to their lust for money and wealth and power and money and more money. I actually have mixed feelings over the issue, for one I am a fairly new online gamer. I have a console game but don't even have it connected to the net because I refuse to buy a longer chord. So, generally speaking I can both understand the cry and hope of gamers for an experience more to their liking, but at the same time I can simpathize with game makers who wish to actually make game making their....shock....business.
Childhood
Where did you grow up? Was it hot in the summer? I grew up some in Utah (6 years from 2-8) but before and after that it was all New England all the time, both Maine and New Hampshire. I still consider myself a true New Englander. Anyway, it could get hot in both places, and in both places I took the opportunity with my brother and friends to capitalize on the heat and those who worked outside by establishing a lemondade stand. And yes, I sold lemonade to people, I did not give it away.
Why?
Because there was this cool arcade down the road, and by pulling in 5 bucks I was set for an entire weekend of arcade gaming. It was beautiful. I was also quite unaware of anyone in the local community or even nationally who protested against my lemonade stand and the fact that I sold it in exchange for real american coins.
There was another trend in my childhood that I would like to point out. The Playground. Now, if you wish to deny what I am about to tell you, be my guest. I can only assume it will be becuase you were a sheltered child that had no friends. So, here I go with my observation: Often while playing some game, whether it was made up or more well known and traditional, I often found myself on the losing end of a "new rule" that some other child made up in order to gain an advantage over me. Let's say I was make believe sword fighting, somebody would suddenly claim to be Darth Vader with a light saber and proceed to cut my sword in half, gain the advantage, kill me and claim victory. I hated that.
Of course I was free to change my mind and the rules of any game I wanted to if that's that choice I wished to make, but that wasn't my style...most of the time. I was a stick-in-the-mud-follow-the-rules type kid, so it would take somebody really pissing me off and taking advantage of me to push me to change the rules right back on them. But that usually led to both parties just getting pissed off and quit playing with each other. So what I'm saying is that I, and I would bet my life that you too, and many experiences where somebody changed or added a rule in a game you were playing that lessened the joy of your playtime, annoyed or frustrated you, or perhaps just pissed you off. Or maybe you were the kid who always changed the rules on others, and if that's the case then let me say now that I'll get you someday, so watch your back!!!
Application
So how does childhood apply to what I'm beginning to talk about? Well I've observed that people don't change that much from childhood, and businesses both change the rules and have the rules changed on them continuously. Added to that the continually changing desires and expectations of gamers, I'm surprised that game developers can make anything worth playing. Well, no I'm not really surprised, but hyperbole seemed appropriate in the moment.
Governments change laws constantly that affect the business decisions of a company. Here are a few decisions that a business must consider depending on the law changes:
1) Business Structure
2) Personnel
3) Tax strategies
4) Location
5) In-House vs Outscourcing
6) Overall Strategy
7) Revenue markets/Opportunities
8) Threaths (including but not limited to Competition)
9) The list could go on and on but I'll stop here for now
New laws require a business to conform to new rules (Sarbanes-Oxley), but sometimes a business will be so innovative that they will create the new rules themselves. The automobile assembly line was an innovation that changed how car companies made cars. It effectively changed the rules of car-making to a level never before seen in the industry. Both the PC and gaming consoles changed how people played games, or what type of games people played. True, people still play board games today, I know there are quite a few I still love to play, but as Atari and others early in the industry discovered, the rules of what, when and how to play a game changed in what the world would consider a very short amount of time.
Expectations are a force in rule making. But notice, expectations are not as strong a factor, and as a result, I believe, the consumer is left to complain that progress isn't progressing as fast as they like. To make it worse, younger generations, meaning those 10-15 or more years younger than me, were not alive to experience the growth from Apple II games to today's incredibly detailed console games and MMO's. Their view on the pace of growth and advancement is far different than mine or those older than me. It feels that their expectations grow faster than an industry is capable of growing.
Of course a counter argument (of many) could be that the game developers today know what is wanted, have the knowledge and technology to make it happen, but simply refuse to out of either greed or fear or whatever. I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt considering the evolution of gaming that I witnessed before my eyes. I'll give them a bit more time to figure things out.
Part I Conclusion
I would like to conclude today's discussion with this thought. Remember that at some time or another we are all or have been rule changers. We know it happens, and sometimes we don't allow for imperfection despite the knowledge that there is a complicated dance happening between the changers of our rules. Governemnts create rules through legislation and politics (be they corrupted or not). Businesses create rules through innovation and even sometimes greed, new thought expands technology, and yet there are some who use these tools for more philanthropic ends and others towards more selfish ends. Expectations changes the rules, although those changes are slower and lead to more dissatisfaction in the consumer.
Part II will focus more on the inner working of a business, the politics, the people, the realities of finance vs what the average person thinks of those finances. I hope you will join me next time, most likely this week, as I continue to wonder whether it's just business, or if it's truly personal.
I've been thinking a lot lately, a lot more than writing, given that I've been unemployed for seven months now barely making rent. Some of you who may know my history of back trouble and my insurance company's absolute refusal to approve my much needed treatment (because, according to them, I don't match the criteria 100% that would merit the kind of treatment I seek...i.e. "It's a business decision, we need to save money where we can by enforcing our policies strictly...it's nothing against you personally"). Anyway, where was I. Oh yes, so knowing my issues with my insurance company it may seem odd when I stand by a businesses right to, yes, make money and place that as priority.
I've witnessed and observed a lot, from childhood until now. I've gone to college and have many, many years as a financial professional under my belt, so I believe I'm quite quailified to speak on something such as business. Of course, even the college kid who took a Bus 101 course and 20 political science courses by a professor extolling the virtues of communism can also have an opinion, it's just that I think we'll disagree on some points.
Getting back on topic, I have noticed a general tone throughout the blogging community over the past year growing sentiments against game makers for not producing better gaming experiences due to their lust for money and wealth and power and money and more money. I actually have mixed feelings over the issue, for one I am a fairly new online gamer. I have a console game but don't even have it connected to the net because I refuse to buy a longer chord. So, generally speaking I can both understand the cry and hope of gamers for an experience more to their liking, but at the same time I can simpathize with game makers who wish to actually make game making their....shock....business.
Childhood
Where did you grow up? Was it hot in the summer? I grew up some in Utah (6 years from 2-8) but before and after that it was all New England all the time, both Maine and New Hampshire. I still consider myself a true New Englander. Anyway, it could get hot in both places, and in both places I took the opportunity with my brother and friends to capitalize on the heat and those who worked outside by establishing a lemondade stand. And yes, I sold lemonade to people, I did not give it away.
Why?
Because there was this cool arcade down the road, and by pulling in 5 bucks I was set for an entire weekend of arcade gaming. It was beautiful. I was also quite unaware of anyone in the local community or even nationally who protested against my lemonade stand and the fact that I sold it in exchange for real american coins.
There was another trend in my childhood that I would like to point out. The Playground. Now, if you wish to deny what I am about to tell you, be my guest. I can only assume it will be becuase you were a sheltered child that had no friends. So, here I go with my observation: Often while playing some game, whether it was made up or more well known and traditional, I often found myself on the losing end of a "new rule" that some other child made up in order to gain an advantage over me. Let's say I was make believe sword fighting, somebody would suddenly claim to be Darth Vader with a light saber and proceed to cut my sword in half, gain the advantage, kill me and claim victory. I hated that.
Of course I was free to change my mind and the rules of any game I wanted to if that's that choice I wished to make, but that wasn't my style...most of the time. I was a stick-in-the-mud-follow-the-rules type kid, so it would take somebody really pissing me off and taking advantage of me to push me to change the rules right back on them. But that usually led to both parties just getting pissed off and quit playing with each other. So what I'm saying is that I, and I would bet my life that you too, and many experiences where somebody changed or added a rule in a game you were playing that lessened the joy of your playtime, annoyed or frustrated you, or perhaps just pissed you off. Or maybe you were the kid who always changed the rules on others, and if that's the case then let me say now that I'll get you someday, so watch your back!!!
Application
So how does childhood apply to what I'm beginning to talk about? Well I've observed that people don't change that much from childhood, and businesses both change the rules and have the rules changed on them continuously. Added to that the continually changing desires and expectations of gamers, I'm surprised that game developers can make anything worth playing. Well, no I'm not really surprised, but hyperbole seemed appropriate in the moment.
Governments change laws constantly that affect the business decisions of a company. Here are a few decisions that a business must consider depending on the law changes:
1) Business Structure
2) Personnel
3) Tax strategies
4) Location
5) In-House vs Outscourcing
6) Overall Strategy
7) Revenue markets/Opportunities
8) Threaths (including but not limited to Competition)
9) The list could go on and on but I'll stop here for now
New laws require a business to conform to new rules (Sarbanes-Oxley), but sometimes a business will be so innovative that they will create the new rules themselves. The automobile assembly line was an innovation that changed how car companies made cars. It effectively changed the rules of car-making to a level never before seen in the industry. Both the PC and gaming consoles changed how people played games, or what type of games people played. True, people still play board games today, I know there are quite a few I still love to play, but as Atari and others early in the industry discovered, the rules of what, when and how to play a game changed in what the world would consider a very short amount of time.
Expectations are a force in rule making. But notice, expectations are not as strong a factor, and as a result, I believe, the consumer is left to complain that progress isn't progressing as fast as they like. To make it worse, younger generations, meaning those 10-15 or more years younger than me, were not alive to experience the growth from Apple II games to today's incredibly detailed console games and MMO's. Their view on the pace of growth and advancement is far different than mine or those older than me. It feels that their expectations grow faster than an industry is capable of growing.
Of course a counter argument (of many) could be that the game developers today know what is wanted, have the knowledge and technology to make it happen, but simply refuse to out of either greed or fear or whatever. I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt considering the evolution of gaming that I witnessed before my eyes. I'll give them a bit more time to figure things out.
Part I Conclusion
I would like to conclude today's discussion with this thought. Remember that at some time or another we are all or have been rule changers. We know it happens, and sometimes we don't allow for imperfection despite the knowledge that there is a complicated dance happening between the changers of our rules. Governemnts create rules through legislation and politics (be they corrupted or not). Businesses create rules through innovation and even sometimes greed, new thought expands technology, and yet there are some who use these tools for more philanthropic ends and others towards more selfish ends. Expectations changes the rules, although those changes are slower and lead to more dissatisfaction in the consumer.
Part II will focus more on the inner working of a business, the politics, the people, the realities of finance vs what the average person thinks of those finances. I hope you will join me next time, most likely this week, as I continue to wonder whether it's just business, or if it's truly personal.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
A Job Even Deathwing Would Hate
The thing about bad guys is they are always so melodramatic. When was the last time you faced a raid boss that just /sighed and said nothing at all? That's right, never! They have their speeches prepared by the losing presidential candidates, always going on and on with their pointless arguments. Don't they get it? They lost the race? The bosses, well, they lost the fight thanks to online videos and detailed breakdowns of the fights on the blogosphere. They need to keep their mouths shut.
One thing that melodramatic bad guys do well with are deadlines. Call them enrage timers or whatever, they know when they need to perform ability X, Y and Z and in what order. They are, in fact, so predictable, that it leads to their ruin many, many times a night. Many jobs in RL have deadlines, so this doesn't exactly pin down a job that these bad guys would be both good at and hate at the same time. So, let's see what else they can do.
Bad guys love bureaucracy, a chain of command to follow when things go sideways. Arthas had his minions following his command, and often they reminded us of their loyalty to Arthas. So clearly they don't have to be independent business owners, they can work for someone who issues commands and sets strict deadlines, so with these two qualities are quite fit for many jobs; at least we've taken Amway distributor out of the running though.
I've wondered, however, if bad guys are good with numbers. Let's take Deathwing. He knows how many sentient lives he wants to destroy, infinity, which makes him both a mathmatician and a philosopher. At the same time, he doesn't want to die himself, which means that he knows how to kill everyone without killing everyone. How does he know, you ask? Why the answer is clear, he's an Accountant. But he hates his job.
Deathwing is great with deadlines (timers and such), loves a good organization chart, is great with fudging numbers (of people he wants to kill), but the one things that keeps him up at night is the governemnt oversight. You see, even the great Aspect of Death can't fudge with the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission). The entire month of January he was busy finishing out 2010's books and getting the annual report ready for the investors (old gods and such folk).
The most frustrating thing about the SEC deadlines is that it doesn't allow for the same melodrama that exists as any of his bad guys prepare for battle. Consequently, for the last month and nine days every single raid boss has not spoken a single word in any combat. The reason being that they needed to hurry up and die to get back to closing the books on their invasion on Azeroth. To further delve into the mystery, they have actually replaced themselves with digital reproductions of themselves, which if prompted, will say some things during a battle, but the actual boss guys themselves have had a gag order placed on their real selves as they slave away at their desks, crunching numbers in their Excel spreadsheets.
But finally, yesterday, Feb 9, Activision Blizzard, er, Deathwing, finally realeased its 2010 annual financial reportings. It was a big event for Deathwing, who was quoted by saying "Now I can finally get back to destroying the world". The SEC really had him by the claws on this one, dictating the timetable TO Deathwing, a job that Deathwing definately hated. "I don't know how Arthas did it! I don't really want to do this again next year; maybe I'll be dead by then and can turn it over to the next bad guy."
I never would have thought that Deathwing would have hated accounting more than Humans, but I'm not complaining.
One thing that melodramatic bad guys do well with are deadlines. Call them enrage timers or whatever, they know when they need to perform ability X, Y and Z and in what order. They are, in fact, so predictable, that it leads to their ruin many, many times a night. Many jobs in RL have deadlines, so this doesn't exactly pin down a job that these bad guys would be both good at and hate at the same time. So, let's see what else they can do.
Bad guys love bureaucracy, a chain of command to follow when things go sideways. Arthas had his minions following his command, and often they reminded us of their loyalty to Arthas. So clearly they don't have to be independent business owners, they can work for someone who issues commands and sets strict deadlines, so with these two qualities are quite fit for many jobs; at least we've taken Amway distributor out of the running though.
I've wondered, however, if bad guys are good with numbers. Let's take Deathwing. He knows how many sentient lives he wants to destroy, infinity, which makes him both a mathmatician and a philosopher. At the same time, he doesn't want to die himself, which means that he knows how to kill everyone without killing everyone. How does he know, you ask? Why the answer is clear, he's an Accountant. But he hates his job.
Deathwing is great with deadlines (timers and such), loves a good organization chart, is great with fudging numbers (of people he wants to kill), but the one things that keeps him up at night is the governemnt oversight. You see, even the great Aspect of Death can't fudge with the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission). The entire month of January he was busy finishing out 2010's books and getting the annual report ready for the investors (old gods and such folk).
The most frustrating thing about the SEC deadlines is that it doesn't allow for the same melodrama that exists as any of his bad guys prepare for battle. Consequently, for the last month and nine days every single raid boss has not spoken a single word in any combat. The reason being that they needed to hurry up and die to get back to closing the books on their invasion on Azeroth. To further delve into the mystery, they have actually replaced themselves with digital reproductions of themselves, which if prompted, will say some things during a battle, but the actual boss guys themselves have had a gag order placed on their real selves as they slave away at their desks, crunching numbers in their Excel spreadsheets.
But finally, yesterday, Feb 9, Activision Blizzard, er, Deathwing, finally realeased its 2010 annual financial reportings. It was a big event for Deathwing, who was quoted by saying "Now I can finally get back to destroying the world". The SEC really had him by the claws on this one, dictating the timetable TO Deathwing, a job that Deathwing definately hated. "I don't know how Arthas did it! I don't really want to do this again next year; maybe I'll be dead by then and can turn it over to the next bad guy."
I never would have thought that Deathwing would have hated accounting more than Humans, but I'm not complaining.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
One Million Reasons!
"Terrell has 25 million reasons why he should be alive."
-- Kim Etheredge, Terrell Owens' publicist
To sports fans, you'll recognize this quote. After it was reported that Cincinnati Bengals Wide Receiver Terrell Owens (not playing for Bengals at the time) allegedly attempted to committ suicide, Owens' publicist, in a statement to the press, made the above remark in reference to Owens' recent signed contract.
I've hired Kim here at Deuwowlity to make another statement, this time on behalf of goblins and gold-lovers alike: "Now you have one million (1,000,000) reasons to play WoW."
That's all I could get from her, oh well. She makes a point, which she probably got from checking out MMO-Champion today, where a reminder of sorts was given to us that the gold cap has been raised to One Million. While technically, it seems the actual cap is 999,999g 99s & 99c, we'll round up by one copper and make it an even Million.
Me
What does this mean? For me it means very little, as I've never even approached the gold cap that was in place currently. I guarantee, even if I play this game for 5 more years, I will never have 1M gold in my backpack, or even a total of 1M gold spread out over every alt of every realm, faction, or race, etc. I don't place much value on playing the gold game. There have been exactly three times where I have played that game, and each time it lasted no longer than a week.
The first was when I decided to save up for my epic flying training. It took about 2-3 days to get 5K gold, and I played the game for a few days past that. The second time was when our guild truly became a raiding guild, I wanted to save money for the large amount of gemming/enchanting/other stuff that was going to be needed, so I played the gold game for another 5 days and made tons of gold (per my standards - given I only was online a couple hours a day). The thrid and final time was after I stopped raiding and decided to save for Cataclysm. For a week I played the gold game on an even more limited basis (an hour a day or so), and within that time I earned nearly 10K for each of my two mains (YES I HAVE TWO MAINS, AND SOON I'LL HAVE THREE, WHACHA GONNA DO?).
So, it's not that I don't know how to make gold, it's that I choose not to.
Gold Sellers
-- Kim Etheredge, Terrell Owens' publicist
To sports fans, you'll recognize this quote. After it was reported that Cincinnati Bengals Wide Receiver Terrell Owens (not playing for Bengals at the time) allegedly attempted to committ suicide, Owens' publicist, in a statement to the press, made the above remark in reference to Owens' recent signed contract.
I've hired Kim here at Deuwowlity to make another statement, this time on behalf of goblins and gold-lovers alike: "Now you have one million (1,000,000) reasons to play WoW."
That's all I could get from her, oh well. She makes a point, which she probably got from checking out MMO-Champion today, where a reminder of sorts was given to us that the gold cap has been raised to One Million. While technically, it seems the actual cap is 999,999g 99s & 99c, we'll round up by one copper and make it an even Million.
Me
What does this mean? For me it means very little, as I've never even approached the gold cap that was in place currently. I guarantee, even if I play this game for 5 more years, I will never have 1M gold in my backpack, or even a total of 1M gold spread out over every alt of every realm, faction, or race, etc. I don't place much value on playing the gold game. There have been exactly three times where I have played that game, and each time it lasted no longer than a week.
The first was when I decided to save up for my epic flying training. It took about 2-3 days to get 5K gold, and I played the game for a few days past that. The second time was when our guild truly became a raiding guild, I wanted to save money for the large amount of gemming/enchanting/other stuff that was going to be needed, so I played the gold game for another 5 days and made tons of gold (per my standards - given I only was online a couple hours a day). The thrid and final time was after I stopped raiding and decided to save for Cataclysm. For a week I played the gold game on an even more limited basis (an hour a day or so), and within that time I earned nearly 10K for each of my two mains (YES I HAVE TWO MAINS, AND SOON I'LL HAVE THREE, WHACHA GONNA DO?).
So, it's not that I don't know how to make gold, it's that I choose not to.
Gold Sellers
I realize there are gold sellers out there who were just made happier that they can now horde more gold per account, but I don't really see this as a buff to gold selling. My opinion is that there will always be people seeking to break the law, and no matter the gold cap, those folk will find ways to sell gold just as they have done in the past. So while they may find the increase of the gold cap a benefit, I don't see that it will boost or curtail gold selling. The only thing that will curtail gold selling are strict regulations and even more strict enforcement. I'm not very tech savy, so I don't know exactly how to police it well, but there must be a way to enforce it better than whatever Blizz is currently doing (if anything).
Goblins
This group, more than any, should be excited about this change. They can now treasure approximately 4 times as much gold as before. What they will use it for I have no idea, but I'm sure they'll be able to find something. Maybe there will be a race to gold cap, perhaps one of these days we'll see some gold-making website claim that they hit 1M gold and they are the new, self-proclaimed Master of the Universe.
I say fine, let 'em have their glory, let 'em have their day in the sun. I'm all for free markets, and if they can achieve the new gold cap quickly without doing anything against the official Blizzard rules, then I say go for it! There are many legitimate and creative tactics out there for making loads of gold, and those that value that activity will be great at it and I applaud them for it.
Not Terrell
If given a choice, I'd rather be in Terrell's shoes than be first to gold cap. $25 Million real world dollars would be infinitely more welcome than $1M virtual gold. But I'm not Terrell, so I'll have to make due with a fantasy for now.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Idea Ownership - Doth it Matterith?
A while back, I don’t exactly remember when, Tesh (From Tish Tosh Tesh) asked me a profound question:
“Does idea ownership matter? Is it not wise to consider ideas on their own merit rather than dismiss or validate them based on their source?
Just a thought…”
I finally have a good answer for him, not my incoherent ramblings from my first attempt. This is something I have thought about constantly for a few months now. So I hope in this attempt I can make my answer perfectly clear. To the question “Does idea ownership matter?”, I say:
YES
“Does idea ownership matter? Is it not wise to consider ideas on their own merit rather than dismiss or validate them based on their source?
Just a thought…”
I finally have a good answer for him, not my incoherent ramblings from my first attempt. This is something I have thought about constantly for a few months now. So I hope in this attempt I can make my answer perfectly clear. To the question “Does idea ownership matter?”, I say:
YES
AND
NO
(If you’ve come here for WoW stuff, hang in there, for me it all comes back to another question about Blizzard that I don’t have the answer to. Moving on…)
Idea Defined
My answer is 100% contingent on the definition of “Idea” that we’re talking about. If we were to discuss a theme or subject of unknown authorship, of general public knowledge and/or interest such as Taxes, Immigration, Slavery, Communism, Capitalism, then NO, idea ownership does not, or at least should not matter. Who came up with the idea of slavery anyway? I don’t know. But over time it’s evolved into a subject of debate and consideration (SDC). That’s right, I just made up my own acronym!!! Who had the bright idea that governments should tax its people? I sure as heck-fire don’t know. These are ideas of a special kind, SDC’s that have no known authorship and are debated in public forums or even privately among friends and acquantences.
There are difficulties, however, in debating these general subjects. One problem I see is that no or very few subject(s) is presented by an impartial spokesman, so any information shared will be tainted by biases too difficult to mask completely, if any attempt to mask them at all has been made. Other difficulties are the variables that become part of the equation: An individual's communication skills (listening, speaking, phraseology, use of common fallacies), personal experiences, personality, temperament, education, and the list goes on and on. The ideal is that these subjects should be considered on their own merits and idea ownership does NOT matter. Too bad the world isn’t ideal.
A Bright Idea
The other definition involves an idea that has a known author, which idea is an actual entity (a thought, conept, sensation, or image) that is actually or potentially present to consciousness. Combined with that are ideas which can be considered “plans of action”.
For example: I have an idea for a new TV show. A little alien, only about 2 ½ feet tall (who, by the way, likes to be called a small, but just as smart, person) with magical powers travels from world to world saving the galaxy in which he lives from evil glowing balls of gas and fire. It will be called “Sun Killer, The Irony of Misunderstood Heroism”.
Would you watch a show about a Gnome who accidentally destroyed all the suns in a Galaxy, believed himself to be a hero but everyone hated him, but due to his utter ignorance kept on doing what he thought was heroic? Maybe, maybe not. Are your opinions changed knowing who the author of the idea was? If, for example, the show was put into production, should I (the author) receive credit for the idea? Does idea ownership, in the above example, matter?
Let’s say you’re on Safari in Africa and fall into a pit with 10 cobra snakes and your grandmother and uncle Vinny. Someone needs to come up with an idea, a unique and specific plan of action fit for the situation or you're all gonna die. "Quick, take granny's shawl and toss it onto that tree root, we'll use it to pull ourselves up!" Or let’s assume that you are a blog writer, a novelist, or a poet? Did anyone else come up with the idea of Harry Potter or was it JK Rowling who had that idea? Maybe you had something similar, but you suck at writing, so you scrapped it. Oh well, no billionaire ball for you!
This definition of idea is clearly different than the first I presented. It implies that the idea is a creative thought or concept designed to answer a question or serve a purpose or make someone's life better, etc, etc, etc. Given this definition of Idea, to answer the question, “Does idea ownership matter?” I say without hesitation…YES.
To prove this I point to some popular social and legal norms. Plagiarism is illegal and unethical in just about every civilized nation I know of (excepting communist or dictatorship states). In science, education, the workplace, if you copy someone’s work and pass it off as your own, that’s bad. Why? Because idea ownership matters!
Many nations, including the US of A has enacted copyright laws to protect original authors of their ideas, or intellectual property.
“Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of ‘original works of authorship,’ including literacy, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works…[The laws] generally gives the owner of the copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf
(See link for more details)
A scientist who bases some part of their new and groundbreaking theories on somebody else’s work MUST reference all his/her work or that scientist will be unemployed and will have to find a job teaching Junior High School somewhere…if they are lucky. Why? Because idea ownership matters. It matters so much, in fact, that breaking copyright law can land you a hefty fine or even up to time in jail. Ouch!
Ideas in the Business World
In business…oh, business. Here is where I begin my decent into Blizzard and World of Warcraft. I’m a businessman, oh yeah. I got to business meeting and have business luncheons, and dress up in business attire, and have a business office. I’ve also had a business idea of mine stolen by a co-worker, which ended up in their promotion and my ultimately having to leave the company. If ever I were to resort to violence to solve problems, that would have been one instance where violence was justified. But that was a long time ago, when I was ignorant and foolish and trusting of, you know, other humans. I’m more guarded now and make sure that I protect my business ideas very, very carefully.
Idea ownership is king in business. It can bring you into the position of CEO or land you in the unemployment line. I imagine if you’re a game developer and come up with a really crappy idea for a game, it may be hard to keep your job or find work in the future. But if you develop a really, really, really great idea and that idea takes off, you could benefit from it in major ways.
Which brings me to my final question, one that I do not have an answer to.
WoW Dev Team – Group Rewards or Individual Recognition?
Does anyone know how much the devs who create all aspects of WoW actually work together vs how often they work alone? Who initially thought up the concept of talents? Did they get a raise? How about 31 point talents? Did that person get a promotion? Or are the ideas that flow within the development team considered “shared” ideas?
Legally, I know ATVI owns all the ideas, it’s how all good businesses protect themselves and their intellectual property and investments. Technically there are things I created at my previous jobs that are legally “owned” by those companies, but I know that I created those programs or processes, etc. And they know it too. But the work I did while there legally belonged to them, as do the ideas belong to ATVI.
But the practices of reality do not always reflect the legality of things. In practice, I wonder if individual devs get credit internally for their work or for any great ideas or concepts that they design? If 10 people are in a room and at the end they decide to go with 31 point talent trees, who gets credit for it? Does anyone? Does everyone? Does idea ownership matter within Blizzard’s development team?
Maybe that question can only be answered by Blizzard, or maybe someone out there has insight that can ease my troubled mind. If I were working on WoW, in some developer capacity (which will never happen, I’m an accountant, remember?) I think that I would enjoy personal and individual recognition of some things, and also be happy for the success of others and as a whole team. But to be void of any individual recognition, to be told that ownership of ideas didn’t matter when I was the one who created the LFD tool (just an example) I think would hurt, ya know, emotionally. How motivated would I be if I never received recognition for the ideas that helped build a really great game? I, Gronthe, would definitely lose some motivation, if I were being honest with myself.
How many used to watch Saturday Night Live in the 1990’s? There was a skit, I can’t remember who did it, I think it was Al Franken, who would have celebrities look into a mirror and say: “I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggonnit people like me.” It was especially funny when Michael Jordan did it at the height of his popularity. But I’m afraid that in business, in the workplace, self-affirmations isn’t enough. I know I’m smart, but I need my boss to know it too. I depend on his opinion for my living. Without it, I lose job satisfaction.
I’m hoping that Blizzard does both, recognize people and teams, and they probably do. But I don’t know for sure. I hope they do because Idea Ownership, when discussing thoughts and concepts of original authorship, DOES MATTER in society, as evidences by our norms and our laws.
All other general subject ideas, SDC’s so to speak, idea ownership DOES NOT MATTER. I should not validate or invalidate an idea, or a subject matter, because a biased source delivers the topic in a way that is leading and not 100% objective. It may be difficult, but the ideal still stands, it does not, or at the very least should not matter. In reality, however, I'm afraid that it does, that people get tainted by a biased opinion that is difficult to uproot. But alas, a discussion for another time...
So to Tesh, who’s questions have tortured me the past few months, I hate you!!! No, I really don’t, I thank you for making me think about this more. For making me delve into my own opinions, for making me look around me in the world and consider the applications of these questions.
I know this wasn’t your typical World of Warcraft post, it was an attempted expression of thoughts that I tied into WoW, somehow. Anyway, I’m tired, I think I want to take a nap. Until next time…
(If you’ve come here for WoW stuff, hang in there, for me it all comes back to another question about Blizzard that I don’t have the answer to. Moving on…)
Idea Defined
My answer is 100% contingent on the definition of “Idea” that we’re talking about. If we were to discuss a theme or subject of unknown authorship, of general public knowledge and/or interest such as Taxes, Immigration, Slavery, Communism, Capitalism, then NO, idea ownership does not, or at least should not matter. Who came up with the idea of slavery anyway? I don’t know. But over time it’s evolved into a subject of debate and consideration (SDC). That’s right, I just made up my own acronym!!! Who had the bright idea that governments should tax its people? I sure as heck-fire don’t know. These are ideas of a special kind, SDC’s that have no known authorship and are debated in public forums or even privately among friends and acquantences.
There are difficulties, however, in debating these general subjects. One problem I see is that no or very few subject(s) is presented by an impartial spokesman, so any information shared will be tainted by biases too difficult to mask completely, if any attempt to mask them at all has been made. Other difficulties are the variables that become part of the equation: An individual's communication skills (listening, speaking, phraseology, use of common fallacies), personal experiences, personality, temperament, education, and the list goes on and on. The ideal is that these subjects should be considered on their own merits and idea ownership does NOT matter. Too bad the world isn’t ideal.
A Bright Idea
The other definition involves an idea that has a known author, which idea is an actual entity (a thought, conept, sensation, or image) that is actually or potentially present to consciousness. Combined with that are ideas which can be considered “plans of action”.
For example: I have an idea for a new TV show. A little alien, only about 2 ½ feet tall (who, by the way, likes to be called a small, but just as smart, person) with magical powers travels from world to world saving the galaxy in which he lives from evil glowing balls of gas and fire. It will be called “Sun Killer, The Irony of Misunderstood Heroism”.
Would you watch a show about a Gnome who accidentally destroyed all the suns in a Galaxy, believed himself to be a hero but everyone hated him, but due to his utter ignorance kept on doing what he thought was heroic? Maybe, maybe not. Are your opinions changed knowing who the author of the idea was? If, for example, the show was put into production, should I (the author) receive credit for the idea? Does idea ownership, in the above example, matter?
Let’s say you’re on Safari in Africa and fall into a pit with 10 cobra snakes and your grandmother and uncle Vinny. Someone needs to come up with an idea, a unique and specific plan of action fit for the situation or you're all gonna die. "Quick, take granny's shawl and toss it onto that tree root, we'll use it to pull ourselves up!" Or let’s assume that you are a blog writer, a novelist, or a poet? Did anyone else come up with the idea of Harry Potter or was it JK Rowling who had that idea? Maybe you had something similar, but you suck at writing, so you scrapped it. Oh well, no billionaire ball for you!
This definition of idea is clearly different than the first I presented. It implies that the idea is a creative thought or concept designed to answer a question or serve a purpose or make someone's life better, etc, etc, etc. Given this definition of Idea, to answer the question, “Does idea ownership matter?” I say without hesitation…YES.
To prove this I point to some popular social and legal norms. Plagiarism is illegal and unethical in just about every civilized nation I know of (excepting communist or dictatorship states). In science, education, the workplace, if you copy someone’s work and pass it off as your own, that’s bad. Why? Because idea ownership matters!
Many nations, including the US of A has enacted copyright laws to protect original authors of their ideas, or intellectual property.
“Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of ‘original works of authorship,’ including literacy, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works…[The laws] generally gives the owner of the copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf
(See link for more details)
A scientist who bases some part of their new and groundbreaking theories on somebody else’s work MUST reference all his/her work or that scientist will be unemployed and will have to find a job teaching Junior High School somewhere…if they are lucky. Why? Because idea ownership matters. It matters so much, in fact, that breaking copyright law can land you a hefty fine or even up to time in jail. Ouch!
Ideas in the Business World
In business…oh, business. Here is where I begin my decent into Blizzard and World of Warcraft. I’m a businessman, oh yeah. I got to business meeting and have business luncheons, and dress up in business attire, and have a business office. I’ve also had a business idea of mine stolen by a co-worker, which ended up in their promotion and my ultimately having to leave the company. If ever I were to resort to violence to solve problems, that would have been one instance where violence was justified. But that was a long time ago, when I was ignorant and foolish and trusting of, you know, other humans. I’m more guarded now and make sure that I protect my business ideas very, very carefully.
Idea ownership is king in business. It can bring you into the position of CEO or land you in the unemployment line. I imagine if you’re a game developer and come up with a really crappy idea for a game, it may be hard to keep your job or find work in the future. But if you develop a really, really, really great idea and that idea takes off, you could benefit from it in major ways.
Which brings me to my final question, one that I do not have an answer to.
WoW Dev Team – Group Rewards or Individual Recognition?
Does anyone know how much the devs who create all aspects of WoW actually work together vs how often they work alone? Who initially thought up the concept of talents? Did they get a raise? How about 31 point talents? Did that person get a promotion? Or are the ideas that flow within the development team considered “shared” ideas?
Legally, I know ATVI owns all the ideas, it’s how all good businesses protect themselves and their intellectual property and investments. Technically there are things I created at my previous jobs that are legally “owned” by those companies, but I know that I created those programs or processes, etc. And they know it too. But the work I did while there legally belonged to them, as do the ideas belong to ATVI.
But the practices of reality do not always reflect the legality of things. In practice, I wonder if individual devs get credit internally for their work or for any great ideas or concepts that they design? If 10 people are in a room and at the end they decide to go with 31 point talent trees, who gets credit for it? Does anyone? Does everyone? Does idea ownership matter within Blizzard’s development team?
Maybe that question can only be answered by Blizzard, or maybe someone out there has insight that can ease my troubled mind. If I were working on WoW, in some developer capacity (which will never happen, I’m an accountant, remember?) I think that I would enjoy personal and individual recognition of some things, and also be happy for the success of others and as a whole team. But to be void of any individual recognition, to be told that ownership of ideas didn’t matter when I was the one who created the LFD tool (just an example) I think would hurt, ya know, emotionally. How motivated would I be if I never received recognition for the ideas that helped build a really great game? I, Gronthe, would definitely lose some motivation, if I were being honest with myself.
How many used to watch Saturday Night Live in the 1990’s? There was a skit, I can’t remember who did it, I think it was Al Franken, who would have celebrities look into a mirror and say: “I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggonnit people like me.” It was especially funny when Michael Jordan did it at the height of his popularity. But I’m afraid that in business, in the workplace, self-affirmations isn’t enough. I know I’m smart, but I need my boss to know it too. I depend on his opinion for my living. Without it, I lose job satisfaction.
I’m hoping that Blizzard does both, recognize people and teams, and they probably do. But I don’t know for sure. I hope they do because Idea Ownership, when discussing thoughts and concepts of original authorship, DOES MATTER in society, as evidences by our norms and our laws.
All other general subject ideas, SDC’s so to speak, idea ownership DOES NOT MATTER. I should not validate or invalidate an idea, or a subject matter, because a biased source delivers the topic in a way that is leading and not 100% objective. It may be difficult, but the ideal still stands, it does not, or at the very least should not matter. In reality, however, I'm afraid that it does, that people get tainted by a biased opinion that is difficult to uproot. But alas, a discussion for another time...
So to Tesh, who’s questions have tortured me the past few months, I hate you!!! No, I really don’t, I thank you for making me think about this more. For making me delve into my own opinions, for making me look around me in the world and consider the applications of these questions.
I know this wasn’t your typical World of Warcraft post, it was an attempted expression of thoughts that I tied into WoW, somehow. Anyway, I’m tired, I think I want to take a nap. Until next time…
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
This is a Test
I read an article today about linking to used or older posts over at Tish Tosh Tesh. Sure, I know he was making some point or another about the issue of buying/selling used games, but he said that if anyone linked to any of his older posts, like this one about "Selling and Reselling", that he would start charging people.
"So, henceforth, anyone (including myself) who links to any of my previous blog posts must pay me the full price originally charged for the post...Each link will incur the full price, so if you link twice, I'll expect you to pay twice."
So, if I understand correctly, if I post this article by Tesh, since I've linked to it once already now I have to pay twice the original amount.
I guess I'm being watched by a Big Brother WombatCam as well, so I guess I should be scared!
Well, Tesh, all I have to say is I AIN'T PAYIN'!!!! I'm taking a stand. I'm using your old stuff and you're gonna like it. Why, if people like your old stuff who's to say they won't buy your new stuff. I know, like you say your stuff is free, but "we're talking ideals and morals here, people!"
Ah the joy of games people play.
Oh, I almost forgot!
"So, henceforth, anyone (including myself) who links to any of my previous blog posts must pay me the full price originally charged for the post...Each link will incur the full price, so if you link twice, I'll expect you to pay twice."
So, if I understand correctly, if I post this article by Tesh, since I've linked to it once already now I have to pay twice the original amount.
I guess I'm being watched by a Big Brother WombatCam as well, so I guess I should be scared!
Well, Tesh, all I have to say is I AIN'T PAYIN'!!!! I'm taking a stand. I'm using your old stuff and you're gonna like it. Why, if people like your old stuff who's to say they won't buy your new stuff. I know, like you say your stuff is free, but "we're talking ideals and morals here, people!"
Ah the joy of games people play.
Oh, I almost forgot!
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Blizzard Made How Much on the Celestial Steed?
The answer may astound you: I have no idea.
You're so full of crap! I wanted to see how much they made on the sparkling pony and now you tell me you have no idea!!!
First of all, I never promised to be able to discover how much ATVI made on sparkling pony sales in Q2, the purpose of taking a look at their financial position is to try and guess how their current financial state will affect their decision making.
The problem I'm faced with in trying to analyze these numbers is that although ATVI is a public company, they are not required to divulge line item expenses from every account within their Chart of Accounts (COA). What the SEC requires them to do they do...nothing more other than a Q&A with high-powered investors. By the way, who knew that Bank of America was an investor in ATVI? Raise your hand if that surprises you.
/handremainsbyside
Still, the figures themselves aren't what are necessarily important, but how those compare with what "the market", or smarty-pants mutual fund managers, thinks they will be. ATVI beat out their own internal figures for Q2 2010 by posting a GAAP net revenue of $967M and $0.17 EPS, but those figures fell short of what "the market" expected. So while on one hand ATVI applauds itself for having a better-than-expected quarter, their stock price takes a hit because it didn't meet market expectations.
That must suck for a company, right? To do better than you expected and knowing that you didn't meet expectations. It reminds me of doublethink, being able to hold two completely opposite viewpoints at the same time and believe in both of them equally. On Aug 2 their stock price was at $11.95 close, and by Aug 6, after the Q2 numbers were released it closed at $10.99.
Students of the stock market will realize that stock prices fluctuate for both fundamental and psychological premises. Investors really do look at revenue, expenses, development costs, leverage ratios (ATVI is in good standing there, they have always had little to no debt), and other metrics to make decisions. But investors are prone to psychological overreactions as well, speculation that the worst is inevitable only to remember that it probably won't happen, but by then it's too late, the stock dropped 10% and they just lost their vacation for the wife and kids. Ooops!
ATVI did something in Q2 that they had never done, they paid out a dividend to investors. Think of it this way, you go to the store to buy some shoes and socks, you come home with some change in your pocket, you kid wants some money to buy an icecream cone so you look through your change and give him some of it to satisfy him/her for the moment. The kids maybe doesn't get the cone they wanted, but they get to buy a stick of gum with a comic on it, how nice. That's sort of how a dividend works, sort of.
Of all that happened during the announcement of the Q2 financial results, the most intriguing was the Q&A with investors. They voiced concerns over assumed high development costs that were to show up in Q3 & Q4 of 2010, which would ultimately lead to less than expected net income figures. In this year end time frame there were to be 3 major releases, Starcraft II, Call of Duty: Black Ops, and WoW: Cataclysm. SC II is supposedly a huge success already, setting all sorts of records. CoD: Black Ops is the most expensive investment they had ever made in a console game...ever, set to be released on Nov 9. Cataclysm, they maintain, is still set to release in 2010.
But haven't they spent money already in devloping these games? Why so many development costs now, right before launch?
I don't pretend to know exactly how they do business, nor specific accounting methods, but I can guess at a few things. The first thing to understand is that unlike your personal finances, where when you go to the store to buy milk, bread, and eggs you call that an expense. A business can spend money, cash even, and call it an asset, expensing it on a later date.
Uh, what? I still don't get it.
Example: You start a business, and you rent office space. The landlord says that rent for January is due December 20. On Dec. 15 you write a check and send it to the landlord. The landlord gets the check, deposits it, and the money comes out of your bank account in December. But this is supposed to be January's rent, not December's. How is this handled by an accountant?
Accountants are master balancers, that is to say that everything they do is based on a formula they try to balance. Your cash is an asset. Rent is an expense. Expenses show up on Income Statements, Assets on Balance Sheets. In December the accounting will look like this for your rent:
Cash Asset Lowerd by $1,000
Pre-Paid Expenses Asset Raised by $1,000
See there, the Pre-Paid Expenses category is an asset, not an expense. In January it will look like this:
Pre-Paid Expenses Asset Lowered by $1,000
Rent Expense Raised by $1,000
At the end of December, that money you paid for January rent is considered an Asset, it has future value. But in January, you lose the future value and you "expense" the rent, which lowers your assets on your balance sheet and raises your expenses on your income statement.
It's the income statement that shows Net Revenues, Expenses, and finally Net Income
Revenues - Expenses = Net Income
What I'm getting at is that there may very well be significant expenses that are still on the balance sheet and have not been "expensed" yet, and won't be until some event happens in the future (i.e. the release of the game) where those expenses are moved and show up on the income statement, affecting the EPS, the net income, and in turn the stock price. Stock prices are future predictors, so if a stock price goes down today it's because the future isn't as hopeful as predicted.
What this means is that although Q2 was good for ATVI, according to their internal figures, outsiders see risk in Q3 & Q4 despite the massive game releases. Expenses will be...expensed, lowering net income, potentially harming dividends and their ability to buy ice cream.
Cataclysm WILL be released in 2010, ATVI can't affort to NOT release it. Despite any deferred income or expenses that will affect the net revenue and net income, there are investors to think about and keep happy. Stock prices are, after all, part psychological, and if the investors are happy stock prices go up.
I was going to put up all these figures today, and compare this number this time of year to the numbers at the same time last year. You can still find them here and here. I'm open for any questions on those boring numbers any time you like. I felt like it was important to look at not only how some financial figures are arrived at, but what the different parties (investors, internal managment) looks at them.
I will never know how many sparkling ponies were sold. I do know this, in a short answer in the Q&A they made a tiny reference in how pleased they were in some of the value-associated transactions, or transactions outside of subscriptions. Given that there were no major game releases in Q2, what is left, aside from intellectual property income, are many of these micro-transactions. So, if you want to know, it seems that the server transfer, pet, sparkle mount transactions brought in some good money to ATVI. Good for them!
The next time I do any sort of major financial analysis will be when I get my hands on the year end Annual Report. I may report some Q3 stuff, but will keep any analysis short. It's my opinion that management is feeling the pinch of high-investment costs in their big releases, and need the revenue that will come with a Cataclysm 2010 release. I don't see any way that it won't be released in 2010. If I'm wrong, then I guess I need to get a new line of work. If I'm right then I'll act like I did when I found out Bank of America was an ATVI investor...not surprised one bit.
You're so full of crap! I wanted to see how much they made on the sparkling pony and now you tell me you have no idea!!!
First of all, I never promised to be able to discover how much ATVI made on sparkling pony sales in Q2, the purpose of taking a look at their financial position is to try and guess how their current financial state will affect their decision making.
The problem I'm faced with in trying to analyze these numbers is that although ATVI is a public company, they are not required to divulge line item expenses from every account within their Chart of Accounts (COA). What the SEC requires them to do they do...nothing more other than a Q&A with high-powered investors. By the way, who knew that Bank of America was an investor in ATVI? Raise your hand if that surprises you.
/handremainsbyside
Still, the figures themselves aren't what are necessarily important, but how those compare with what "the market", or smarty-pants mutual fund managers, thinks they will be. ATVI beat out their own internal figures for Q2 2010 by posting a GAAP net revenue of $967M and $0.17 EPS, but those figures fell short of what "the market" expected. So while on one hand ATVI applauds itself for having a better-than-expected quarter, their stock price takes a hit because it didn't meet market expectations.
That must suck for a company, right? To do better than you expected and knowing that you didn't meet expectations. It reminds me of doublethink, being able to hold two completely opposite viewpoints at the same time and believe in both of them equally. On Aug 2 their stock price was at $11.95 close, and by Aug 6, after the Q2 numbers were released it closed at $10.99.
Students of the stock market will realize that stock prices fluctuate for both fundamental and psychological premises. Investors really do look at revenue, expenses, development costs, leverage ratios (ATVI is in good standing there, they have always had little to no debt), and other metrics to make decisions. But investors are prone to psychological overreactions as well, speculation that the worst is inevitable only to remember that it probably won't happen, but by then it's too late, the stock dropped 10% and they just lost their vacation for the wife and kids. Ooops!
ATVI did something in Q2 that they had never done, they paid out a dividend to investors. Think of it this way, you go to the store to buy some shoes and socks, you come home with some change in your pocket, you kid wants some money to buy an icecream cone so you look through your change and give him some of it to satisfy him/her for the moment. The kids maybe doesn't get the cone they wanted, but they get to buy a stick of gum with a comic on it, how nice. That's sort of how a dividend works, sort of.
Of all that happened during the announcement of the Q2 financial results, the most intriguing was the Q&A with investors. They voiced concerns over assumed high development costs that were to show up in Q3 & Q4 of 2010, which would ultimately lead to less than expected net income figures. In this year end time frame there were to be 3 major releases, Starcraft II, Call of Duty: Black Ops, and WoW: Cataclysm. SC II is supposedly a huge success already, setting all sorts of records. CoD: Black Ops is the most expensive investment they had ever made in a console game...ever, set to be released on Nov 9. Cataclysm, they maintain, is still set to release in 2010.
But haven't they spent money already in devloping these games? Why so many development costs now, right before launch?
I don't pretend to know exactly how they do business, nor specific accounting methods, but I can guess at a few things. The first thing to understand is that unlike your personal finances, where when you go to the store to buy milk, bread, and eggs you call that an expense. A business can spend money, cash even, and call it an asset, expensing it on a later date.
Uh, what? I still don't get it.
Example: You start a business, and you rent office space. The landlord says that rent for January is due December 20. On Dec. 15 you write a check and send it to the landlord. The landlord gets the check, deposits it, and the money comes out of your bank account in December. But this is supposed to be January's rent, not December's. How is this handled by an accountant?
Accountants are master balancers, that is to say that everything they do is based on a formula they try to balance. Your cash is an asset. Rent is an expense. Expenses show up on Income Statements, Assets on Balance Sheets. In December the accounting will look like this for your rent:
Cash Asset Lowerd by $1,000
Pre-Paid Expenses Asset Raised by $1,000
See there, the Pre-Paid Expenses category is an asset, not an expense. In January it will look like this:
Pre-Paid Expenses Asset Lowered by $1,000
Rent Expense Raised by $1,000
At the end of December, that money you paid for January rent is considered an Asset, it has future value. But in January, you lose the future value and you "expense" the rent, which lowers your assets on your balance sheet and raises your expenses on your income statement.
It's the income statement that shows Net Revenues, Expenses, and finally Net Income
Revenues - Expenses = Net Income
What I'm getting at is that there may very well be significant expenses that are still on the balance sheet and have not been "expensed" yet, and won't be until some event happens in the future (i.e. the release of the game) where those expenses are moved and show up on the income statement, affecting the EPS, the net income, and in turn the stock price. Stock prices are future predictors, so if a stock price goes down today it's because the future isn't as hopeful as predicted.
What this means is that although Q2 was good for ATVI, according to their internal figures, outsiders see risk in Q3 & Q4 despite the massive game releases. Expenses will be...expensed, lowering net income, potentially harming dividends and their ability to buy ice cream.
Cataclysm WILL be released in 2010, ATVI can't affort to NOT release it. Despite any deferred income or expenses that will affect the net revenue and net income, there are investors to think about and keep happy. Stock prices are, after all, part psychological, and if the investors are happy stock prices go up.
I was going to put up all these figures today, and compare this number this time of year to the numbers at the same time last year. You can still find them here and here. I'm open for any questions on those boring numbers any time you like. I felt like it was important to look at not only how some financial figures are arrived at, but what the different parties (investors, internal managment) looks at them.
I will never know how many sparkling ponies were sold. I do know this, in a short answer in the Q&A they made a tiny reference in how pleased they were in some of the value-associated transactions, or transactions outside of subscriptions. Given that there were no major game releases in Q2, what is left, aside from intellectual property income, are many of these micro-transactions. So, if you want to know, it seems that the server transfer, pet, sparkle mount transactions brought in some good money to ATVI. Good for them!
The next time I do any sort of major financial analysis will be when I get my hands on the year end Annual Report. I may report some Q3 stuff, but will keep any analysis short. It's my opinion that management is feeling the pinch of high-investment costs in their big releases, and need the revenue that will come with a Cataclysm 2010 release. I don't see any way that it won't be released in 2010. If I'm wrong, then I guess I need to get a new line of work. If I'm right then I'll act like I did when I found out Bank of America was an ATVI investor...not surprised one bit.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Friday Media Race!
Lil' ol' me scooped the big, bad Wow.com...by nearly 24 hours! Today they announced that, per an investor conference call yesterday, that Cataclysm was on track for a 2010 release date.
Funny, I announced this yesterday!!!!
I cringed when I startd to read the comments, and hoped that if people actually wanted more and good information all they need to do is hop on over to deuwowlity.blogspot.com. I wish I could have been there for the poor commenter who guessed at a Nov. 9 release date. That just won't happen.
Why? Prove it!
Well...because they will be releasing Call of Duty: Black Ops on Nov. 9, and any idoit running a business knows that you don't have bobble-head night, dollar beer night, and fireworks night all on the same night. What incentive will people have to buy from you any other day of the week if you do everything only in one day?
I believe Larisa postulated a Nov 17 release date. That's actually a pretty good guess, in my estimation. I think the 17th is the earliest date, that would be one week before the Thanksgiving holiday here in the States. But something inside me still feels like the 17th is a bit too close to the 9th - it's not quite two full weeks, actually it's only one week and one day. I think they would love to see it released in time for people to do some major Christmas shopping, and with Nov. 26th being the biggest shopping day of the year in the US I think that there's a good chance that they'll want it on shelves by then.
If I were Blizzard, I'd want there to be at least two full weeks between the two biggest launches of the year, and two of the biggest in their history. Call of Duty: Black Ops was the most expensive project (non-mmo) ever in the history of Activision, just a tidbit there for ya. Why is that important? It means that it's a huge release and they want to be able to market it properly. Not just the buildup, but marketing reminders that it's on the shelves.
So, if Larisa can say Nov. 17, I'm going to give it a few more days, but before Nov. 26th and say that Cataclysm will be officially released on Tuesday November 23. That is exactly two full weeks after Call of Duty: Black Ops.
I have no proof, only speculation. But that's what makes the blog forum so much fun, you don't have to prove anything!!!
Have a great weekend!
Funny, I announced this yesterday!!!!
I cringed when I startd to read the comments, and hoped that if people actually wanted more and good information all they need to do is hop on over to deuwowlity.blogspot.com. I wish I could have been there for the poor commenter who guessed at a Nov. 9 release date. That just won't happen.
Why? Prove it!
Well...because they will be releasing Call of Duty: Black Ops on Nov. 9, and any idoit running a business knows that you don't have bobble-head night, dollar beer night, and fireworks night all on the same night. What incentive will people have to buy from you any other day of the week if you do everything only in one day?
I believe Larisa postulated a Nov 17 release date. That's actually a pretty good guess, in my estimation. I think the 17th is the earliest date, that would be one week before the Thanksgiving holiday here in the States. But something inside me still feels like the 17th is a bit too close to the 9th - it's not quite two full weeks, actually it's only one week and one day. I think they would love to see it released in time for people to do some major Christmas shopping, and with Nov. 26th being the biggest shopping day of the year in the US I think that there's a good chance that they'll want it on shelves by then.
If I were Blizzard, I'd want there to be at least two full weeks between the two biggest launches of the year, and two of the biggest in their history. Call of Duty: Black Ops was the most expensive project (non-mmo) ever in the history of Activision, just a tidbit there for ya. Why is that important? It means that it's a huge release and they want to be able to market it properly. Not just the buildup, but marketing reminders that it's on the shelves.
So, if Larisa can say Nov. 17, I'm going to give it a few more days, but before Nov. 26th and say that Cataclysm will be officially released on Tuesday November 23. That is exactly two full weeks after Call of Duty: Black Ops.
I have no proof, only speculation. But that's what makes the blog forum so much fun, you don't have to prove anything!!!
Have a great weekend!
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Preliminary Q2 Numbers Only for ATVI
I am going to need a few days to go over reports that ATVI will release to the public. I'm much interested in the segmented income statements and balance sheets (separate financial reports from Activision & Blizzard respectively). I was able to listen in on the investor conference call where ATVI discussed their Q2 financial performance and talked about things to come in Q3 and Q4 of 2010.
GAAP
Expected Net Revenue $925M
Expected EPS (Earnings per share) $0.11
Actual Net Revenue $967M
Actual EPS $0.17
NON-GAAP
Expected Net Revenue $700M
Expected EPS $0.04
Actual Net Revenue $683M
Actual EPS $0.06
As we see, the actual EPS on a GAAP & Non-GAAP basis outpaced expectations for Q2. Blizzard Entertainment again made significant contributions to overall net revenue thanks to the continued success of World of Warcraft franchise.
Where they announced a specific release date for Activision's Call of Duty: Black Ops for November 9, Mike Morhaime (Blizzard CEO) stated:
"... I'd like to point to the release of Cataclysm, being our best expansion yet for World of Warcraft. Although an exact release date has not yet been announced, we're on track to launch the expansion by the end of the year. As with all Blizzard games, though, we won't release until it's ready."
I know they say they won't release it until it's ready, but after listening to them it's quite clear that they are 100% intent on releasing it in Q4. They want to release all their Activision titles before Thanksgiving, so it's not much of a stretch to assume that Cataslysm's release date will fall sometime around Thanksgiving as well, either very closely before it or immediately after in order to grab the seasonal market.
As is the trend with a lot of gaming companies, ATVI seems focused on providing BIGGER AND BETTER games, but fewer of them; focusing on quality and not quantity.
Interestingly, StarCraft II sold over 1.5M copies in its first 48 hours, that's more than double than what WoW sold on its inital box release. Yet dispite the apparent massive SC II sales, non-gaap EPS is only expected to be $0.08 in Q3, an issue a few investors questioned during the Q&A session. It's anticipated, and given the development of both Cataclysm and Blizzard's new yet unnamed MMO, that there will be significant development costs in the third quarter of 2010 that will lead to, if you can believe it, lower GAAP net revenues in Q3 than in Q2, but slightly higher net revenues per non-gaap reporting.
Looking ahead there are still plans to invest record amounts of capital into new and innovative franchises, such as Blizzard's new MMO, of which we have no details. ATVI's strong cash position and low debt services are an important stepping stone to free up the capital necessary in making such long-term investments. Despite the risks inherent in the gaming industry, both subscription and valued transaction revenues remain strong in US, Europe and SE Asia.
Blizzard is one approval away from being able to launch WotLK in China...which gives me yet another reason why I'm glad I'm not Chinese. No Worgen for you, Yao Ming.
Overall it was an informative conference call, and I plan on going through what other financials are available to me over the next few days in hopes to make many outlandish and false claims of the direction and motives of Blizzard Entertainment as they relate to World of Warcraft. Just be glad you don't have to pour through pages of financials, they can get rather boring. But it's not the numbers that excite, it's what we can infer from them, namely how the financial situation of a company impacts game design and delivery.
You'll see my full report next Monday, until then, you're always welcome here and thanks for stopping by.
GAAP
Expected Net Revenue $925M
Expected EPS (Earnings per share) $0.11
Actual Net Revenue $967M
Actual EPS $0.17
NON-GAAP
Expected Net Revenue $700M
Expected EPS $0.04
Actual Net Revenue $683M
Actual EPS $0.06
As we see, the actual EPS on a GAAP & Non-GAAP basis outpaced expectations for Q2. Blizzard Entertainment again made significant contributions to overall net revenue thanks to the continued success of World of Warcraft franchise.
Where they announced a specific release date for Activision's Call of Duty: Black Ops for November 9, Mike Morhaime (Blizzard CEO) stated:
"... I'd like to point to the release of Cataclysm, being our best expansion yet for World of Warcraft. Although an exact release date has not yet been announced, we're on track to launch the expansion by the end of the year. As with all Blizzard games, though, we won't release until it's ready."
I know they say they won't release it until it's ready, but after listening to them it's quite clear that they are 100% intent on releasing it in Q4. They want to release all their Activision titles before Thanksgiving, so it's not much of a stretch to assume that Cataslysm's release date will fall sometime around Thanksgiving as well, either very closely before it or immediately after in order to grab the seasonal market.
As is the trend with a lot of gaming companies, ATVI seems focused on providing BIGGER AND BETTER games, but fewer of them; focusing on quality and not quantity.
Interestingly, StarCraft II sold over 1.5M copies in its first 48 hours, that's more than double than what WoW sold on its inital box release. Yet dispite the apparent massive SC II sales, non-gaap EPS is only expected to be $0.08 in Q3, an issue a few investors questioned during the Q&A session. It's anticipated, and given the development of both Cataclysm and Blizzard's new yet unnamed MMO, that there will be significant development costs in the third quarter of 2010 that will lead to, if you can believe it, lower GAAP net revenues in Q3 than in Q2, but slightly higher net revenues per non-gaap reporting.
Looking ahead there are still plans to invest record amounts of capital into new and innovative franchises, such as Blizzard's new MMO, of which we have no details. ATVI's strong cash position and low debt services are an important stepping stone to free up the capital necessary in making such long-term investments. Despite the risks inherent in the gaming industry, both subscription and valued transaction revenues remain strong in US, Europe and SE Asia.
Blizzard is one approval away from being able to launch WotLK in China...which gives me yet another reason why I'm glad I'm not Chinese. No Worgen for you, Yao Ming.
Overall it was an informative conference call, and I plan on going through what other financials are available to me over the next few days in hopes to make many outlandish and false claims of the direction and motives of Blizzard Entertainment as they relate to World of Warcraft. Just be glad you don't have to pour through pages of financials, they can get rather boring. But it's not the numbers that excite, it's what we can infer from them, namely how the financial situation of a company impacts game design and delivery.
You'll see my full report next Monday, until then, you're always welcome here and thanks for stopping by.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Q2 - Two Days Away
In case you didn't hear, Activision Blizzard's Q2 financial results will be announced this Thursday, August 5 at 1:30 pm PDT (4:30 EDT). Here's the detail:
SANTA MONICA, Calif., July 19, 2010 /PRNewswire via COMTEX News Network/ -- Activision Blizzard, Inc. (Nasdaq: ATVI) intends to release its second quarter 2010 results after the close of the market on Thursday, August 5, 2010. In conjunction with this release, Activision Blizzard will host a conference call that will be broadcast over the Internet.
To listen to the call, please log onto:
http://investor.activision.com/events.cfm
Word on the street is they will have some important bits of news to announce (Cataclysm release date???). Notice it says "In conjunction" with the Q2 results, there will be more goodie news to be had. So get your headphones/speakers ready, whether at work or home don't forget to tune in, it should be pretty interesting. Well, at least I think so.
SANTA MONICA, Calif., July 19, 2010 /PRNewswire via COMTEX News Network/ -- Activision Blizzard, Inc. (Nasdaq: ATVI) intends to release its second quarter 2010 results after the close of the market on Thursday, August 5, 2010. In conjunction with this release, Activision Blizzard will host a conference call that will be broadcast over the Internet.
To listen to the call, please log onto:
http://investor.activision.com/events.cfm
Word on the street is they will have some important bits of news to announce (Cataclysm release date???). Notice it says "In conjunction" with the Q2 results, there will be more goodie news to be had. So get your headphones/speakers ready, whether at work or home don't forget to tune in, it should be pretty interesting. Well, at least I think so.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Conspiracy Theory & Current Tank State
Timing is Everything
As I'm waiting to gather and go through Activision Blizzard's Q2 financials I had a thought: Companies often like to meet or beat their quarterly expectations, right? Well of course they do, they live quarter to quarter, that's the demands of the marketplace. Interestingly the "optional portion of RealID was released late in the second quarter. The calculating decision that originated at the highest levels of ATVI management was to let the public know of their intentions to use RealID on the forums...at the beginning of the third quarter.
I think that they actually did expect some backlash to the RealID implementation on the forums and didn't want that news to be delivered in a time that could affect their second quarter performance. You see, CEO's answer to a board of directors, and no doubt the board didn't want to see a late Q2 drop in subscriptions, thus potentially hurting their chances of making Q2 estimates. When the Q2 actuals are released on 8/2/10, we'll most likely see that ATVI exceeded expectations, which will only help fuel stock prices.
By releasing this information at the very start of Q3, it gave ATVI plenty of time this quarter to make up any lost revenue from any anticipated subscription backlash. They may have said to the press that they didn't expect a fuss over the RealID on forums, but actions prove any such statements false, otherwise they would have had no objections to telling us about these plans when they first launched the "optional" RealID last patch. Oh yes, the plot thickens. They know they can withstand x% of account cancellations in Q3 and still meet or exceed expectations because of teh launch of SC II this quarter and WoW: Cataclysm in Q4. Stay tuned...
Focused
I don't do hardmodes, I consider myself a casual raider. I like it, but I really enjoy playing with all my toons of all levels. Too often I get trapped in a cycle where I feel I need to run my daily dungeon for my frost emblems, but this is getting extremely old. I mean, last night I ran the Occulus (Heroic) for the 69th time! I get it 4-5 times a week now. I've started to play with my other toons a lot more lately as a result, and my guild often wonders where I am. Thanks to RealID I can hide from everyone...as I refuse to use it.
Focused gameplay isn't for me. I would never say it's a bad thing, I'm only saying it's not my cup of kool-aid. A few months ago I was 100% into raiding, gearing up, becoming more powerful. Now, so close to the stat and gear reset, I just don't care as much anymore about that. It's all good, though, a balanced game for me means a more relaxed mind and happier kids (they hate it when I go all out raiding and daily dungeons, they always say that I forgot how to have fun - my kids, more than anything, help keep me balanced and having fun in this game; without them I know I'd burnout too quickly).
The State of Tanks
The other night I was, you guessed it, queued up for my daily frost emblem run (hoorah!). The group was assembled and we zoned in. Then the tank teleported out. The group sat there for some minutes until someone asked the tank in party chat when he was planning to come? No response. Evidently the tank had a date with some low level zones that he needed to farm. Curious to this behavior I sent a very polite tell to the tank asking how much longer he'd be. His response:
Tank: "Why did you pick your @#$% class?"
Me: "???"
Tank: "Why did you choose your @#$# race?"
Me: ...
Tank: "Why are you so @#$@#$ stupid?"
/ignore
I tried to vote kick but it told me I had to wait 24 minutes. What!?!?! I've never vote kicked anyone, why do I have to wait so long? Lucky for me someone else didn't have to wait, we initiated a vote kick and picked up a new one. The tank pulled the first two then ran on. Problem: There was a patrol right on our heels that everyone, except the tank, noticed. It killed two people at the back of the pack, finally garnering the attention of the tank. After turning and helping us down the patrol the tank spoke up:
Tank: "No wonder the last tank quit this group, you guys suck."
/tankleavesgroup
Group: "??? - Rough night for tanks"
So, according to that small scientific experiment, it can be said that 2 out of 3 tanks are utter jerks. Self-absorbed, small-minded, immature jerks. That's right, I said scientific. Because we all know that 3 samples is all you need to prove a theory. :)
The state of tanks is good right now, unless your unlucky and the tank is a jerk, then the state of tanks in this game is left wanting.
Let's see if we can deduce over the next month or so if my conspiracy theory is any good. I, for obvious reasons, suspect it is. We...shall...see.
As I'm waiting to gather and go through Activision Blizzard's Q2 financials I had a thought: Companies often like to meet or beat their quarterly expectations, right? Well of course they do, they live quarter to quarter, that's the demands of the marketplace. Interestingly the "optional portion of RealID was released late in the second quarter. The calculating decision that originated at the highest levels of ATVI management was to let the public know of their intentions to use RealID on the forums...at the beginning of the third quarter.
I think that they actually did expect some backlash to the RealID implementation on the forums and didn't want that news to be delivered in a time that could affect their second quarter performance. You see, CEO's answer to a board of directors, and no doubt the board didn't want to see a late Q2 drop in subscriptions, thus potentially hurting their chances of making Q2 estimates. When the Q2 actuals are released on 8/2/10, we'll most likely see that ATVI exceeded expectations, which will only help fuel stock prices.
By releasing this information at the very start of Q3, it gave ATVI plenty of time this quarter to make up any lost revenue from any anticipated subscription backlash. They may have said to the press that they didn't expect a fuss over the RealID on forums, but actions prove any such statements false, otherwise they would have had no objections to telling us about these plans when they first launched the "optional" RealID last patch. Oh yes, the plot thickens. They know they can withstand x% of account cancellations in Q3 and still meet or exceed expectations because of teh launch of SC II this quarter and WoW: Cataclysm in Q4. Stay tuned...
Focused
I don't do hardmodes, I consider myself a casual raider. I like it, but I really enjoy playing with all my toons of all levels. Too often I get trapped in a cycle where I feel I need to run my daily dungeon for my frost emblems, but this is getting extremely old. I mean, last night I ran the Occulus (Heroic) for the 69th time! I get it 4-5 times a week now. I've started to play with my other toons a lot more lately as a result, and my guild often wonders where I am. Thanks to RealID I can hide from everyone...as I refuse to use it.
Focused gameplay isn't for me. I would never say it's a bad thing, I'm only saying it's not my cup of kool-aid. A few months ago I was 100% into raiding, gearing up, becoming more powerful. Now, so close to the stat and gear reset, I just don't care as much anymore about that. It's all good, though, a balanced game for me means a more relaxed mind and happier kids (they hate it when I go all out raiding and daily dungeons, they always say that I forgot how to have fun - my kids, more than anything, help keep me balanced and having fun in this game; without them I know I'd burnout too quickly).
The State of Tanks
The other night I was, you guessed it, queued up for my daily frost emblem run (hoorah!). The group was assembled and we zoned in. Then the tank teleported out. The group sat there for some minutes until someone asked the tank in party chat when he was planning to come? No response. Evidently the tank had a date with some low level zones that he needed to farm. Curious to this behavior I sent a very polite tell to the tank asking how much longer he'd be. His response:
Tank: "Why did you pick your @#$% class?"
Me: "???"
Tank: "Why did you choose your @#$# race?"
Me: ...
Tank: "Why are you so @#$@#$ stupid?"
/ignore
I tried to vote kick but it told me I had to wait 24 minutes. What!?!?! I've never vote kicked anyone, why do I have to wait so long? Lucky for me someone else didn't have to wait, we initiated a vote kick and picked up a new one. The tank pulled the first two then ran on. Problem: There was a patrol right on our heels that everyone, except the tank, noticed. It killed two people at the back of the pack, finally garnering the attention of the tank. After turning and helping us down the patrol the tank spoke up:
Tank: "No wonder the last tank quit this group, you guys suck."
/tankleavesgroup
Group: "??? - Rough night for tanks"
So, according to that small scientific experiment, it can be said that 2 out of 3 tanks are utter jerks. Self-absorbed, small-minded, immature jerks. That's right, I said scientific. Because we all know that 3 samples is all you need to prove a theory. :)
The state of tanks is good right now, unless your unlucky and the tank is a jerk, then the state of tanks in this game is left wanting.
Let's see if we can deduce over the next month or so if my conspiracy theory is any good. I, for obvious reasons, suspect it is. We...shall...see.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Data
I am not a professional researcher. I am not a professional historian. I am a professional accountant with experience in many different industries. One, in particular, relates to this post by Larisa about whether WoW is really dying. The industry I speak of and my part in it is the Mortgage & Real Estate.
I'd like to say first that "It's not my fault!" Seriously, I had nothing to do with you buying a house you couldn't afford thinking that it would appreciate 200% over the next 12 months but now you're upside down on your loan and can't sell your house and can't afford the higher interest rate from the 3/1 Arm you bought. It's not really your fault either, I just like playing with people.
I think the big difference between Blizzard and the individual who claims that WoW is dying is Data, or information gained through years of research. The big difference between the loan officer who was trying to sell you a loan you couldn't afford and you was information...they had it, you didn't, but they too had a family to feed.
If you want to know all the reasons for the real estate collapse, I know the circumstances more intimately than most but won't spell it all out in tedium here. My particular position with this billion dollar mortgage bank was one where I and my supervisors had a lot of data. And as it was my and others' jobs to forecast and interpret this data, I did my very best.
I recall a beautiful afternoon here in Las Vegas when I went to lunch with our CFO, Controller and other accounting friends. This was about a year before things started to circle the drain, a time of tremendous growth, tremendous risk, and tremendous profits. There had been signs, however, signs that I noticed a couple years before. Underwriters of loans began to question the results of home Appraisers. But when appraisers stood their ground and a second confirmed the higher than usual home value, underwriters were forced to allow the loans to be processed.
One point of data led to another, until this fateful lunch outing when I told my bosses that our business was bound to fail. "It's just too risky, and nobody is paying attention to the underlying values of these mortgages, which are being sold to people who can't afford them and bought by banks who have desintegrating purchase standards. There's no way these loans can be pooled unless there's collusion on the secondary markets." Come to find out, there was (separate topic). My CFO started to ask our Secondary Marketing manager to look closely at the loans being sold to our investors. And as the year waned our CFO brougt data to our owners and told them that we needed to pull back on the risky loans and form a more traditional model that would keep us in business.
One February morning, Valentines day I think it was, we all came into work and an email was waiting for us.
"We're closed. Go home. No jobs for anyone."
We had data, we had viable and verifiable information upon which we based our council. That the owners didn't listen was their choice.
Re: the immenent death of WoW, it's my simple belief that they, a multi-billion dollar public company, has more information and data than any single player in the world. No matter how smart you may think you are or how much you think you know, Blizzard simply has more resources to collect the data they need to base decisions on.
Does that mean that all their decisions are good or the right business path? Absolutely not. But having been a part of a billion dollar business and having access to ALL the company data, I can with confidence say that I would rather trust people with the information than those without. I am not referring to concepts and ideas of game mechanics, lore, etc, I'm referring to the "big picture" data and information. People don't tend to choose to NOT play WoW because of the chat window (which was seeminly messed up this last patch), no, I'm not a single voter when it comes to WoW, and I'd venture to guess that most of you aren't either.
Blizzard has the data and believes that they will sell X # of copies of Cataclysm, have X # of subscribers during months Y & Z. They monitor that data and use it as a PART of their decision making process. And so far the decisions that they have made have led to increased popularity and access, not less.
As I hinted at before, I don't trust their data 100% because there are always variables in product creation and general business practices that will alter the expected course. But given the vast amounts of research they have done, I dare say that they know more than you or me put together. WoW isn't dying the way I guess some people have claimed for the past few years. It is losing individuals, but I guarantee Blizz isn't basing their decision on the whims of some individuals, they have the big picture in front of them, something nobody out there except for them can claim to have.
So let's just see if the choices they implement upcoming and in Cataclysm make this game more or less popular. As of now it's all just guess work.
I'd like to say first that "It's not my fault!" Seriously, I had nothing to do with you buying a house you couldn't afford thinking that it would appreciate 200% over the next 12 months but now you're upside down on your loan and can't sell your house and can't afford the higher interest rate from the 3/1 Arm you bought. It's not really your fault either, I just like playing with people.
I think the big difference between Blizzard and the individual who claims that WoW is dying is Data, or information gained through years of research. The big difference between the loan officer who was trying to sell you a loan you couldn't afford and you was information...they had it, you didn't, but they too had a family to feed.
If you want to know all the reasons for the real estate collapse, I know the circumstances more intimately than most but won't spell it all out in tedium here. My particular position with this billion dollar mortgage bank was one where I and my supervisors had a lot of data. And as it was my and others' jobs to forecast and interpret this data, I did my very best.
I recall a beautiful afternoon here in Las Vegas when I went to lunch with our CFO, Controller and other accounting friends. This was about a year before things started to circle the drain, a time of tremendous growth, tremendous risk, and tremendous profits. There had been signs, however, signs that I noticed a couple years before. Underwriters of loans began to question the results of home Appraisers. But when appraisers stood their ground and a second confirmed the higher than usual home value, underwriters were forced to allow the loans to be processed.
One point of data led to another, until this fateful lunch outing when I told my bosses that our business was bound to fail. "It's just too risky, and nobody is paying attention to the underlying values of these mortgages, which are being sold to people who can't afford them and bought by banks who have desintegrating purchase standards. There's no way these loans can be pooled unless there's collusion on the secondary markets." Come to find out, there was (separate topic). My CFO started to ask our Secondary Marketing manager to look closely at the loans being sold to our investors. And as the year waned our CFO brougt data to our owners and told them that we needed to pull back on the risky loans and form a more traditional model that would keep us in business.
One February morning, Valentines day I think it was, we all came into work and an email was waiting for us.
"We're closed. Go home. No jobs for anyone."
We had data, we had viable and verifiable information upon which we based our council. That the owners didn't listen was their choice.
Re: the immenent death of WoW, it's my simple belief that they, a multi-billion dollar public company, has more information and data than any single player in the world. No matter how smart you may think you are or how much you think you know, Blizzard simply has more resources to collect the data they need to base decisions on.
Does that mean that all their decisions are good or the right business path? Absolutely not. But having been a part of a billion dollar business and having access to ALL the company data, I can with confidence say that I would rather trust people with the information than those without. I am not referring to concepts and ideas of game mechanics, lore, etc, I'm referring to the "big picture" data and information. People don't tend to choose to NOT play WoW because of the chat window (which was seeminly messed up this last patch), no, I'm not a single voter when it comes to WoW, and I'd venture to guess that most of you aren't either.
Blizzard has the data and believes that they will sell X # of copies of Cataclysm, have X # of subscribers during months Y & Z. They monitor that data and use it as a PART of their decision making process. And so far the decisions that they have made have led to increased popularity and access, not less.
As I hinted at before, I don't trust their data 100% because there are always variables in product creation and general business practices that will alter the expected course. But given the vast amounts of research they have done, I dare say that they know more than you or me put together. WoW isn't dying the way I guess some people have claimed for the past few years. It is losing individuals, but I guarantee Blizz isn't basing their decision on the whims of some individuals, they have the big picture in front of them, something nobody out there except for them can claim to have.
So let's just see if the choices they implement upcoming and in Cataclysm make this game more or less popular. As of now it's all just guess work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)