Jump to content
FORUMS
Staff

Bobby Kotick Asks Board for Reduced Salary in a Letter Sent to Employees

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, Dia said:

And that is absolutely fine. No one will ever have same advantages. Tough luck. It means you have to try harder, work better so your children will have more advantages in life. This is how life worked for the last millennia. 

Okay, let's review what you're calling "absolutely fine".

Quote

When looking for the "best applicant" it has been documented, over and over again, that if you have completely equal applicants, minorities are passed over. Systematically.

And you're good with this. Thank you for making your position clear.

Edited by solitha
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2021 at 10:22 AM, solitha said:

Not every group has had the same advantages and disadvantages.

When looking for the "best applicant" it has been documented, over and over again, that if you have completely equal applicants, minorities are passed over. Systematically.

Opportunity is not enough. It was a great idea, but it has been shown not to work out in practice. Focusing on outcome works.

"It has been documented" huh? Well it must be true then. I guess that's pretty much every boss I have ever had in IT for the last 15 years has been Female or some "Minority". 

If 2 people are equally qualified then why should the non-minority NOT be chosen? It would be Racist to specifically not hire them because they are white. 

Race, *filtered*, and orientation should have NOTHING to do with a hiring process unless it is specifically important to the job. (Like needing a female actor).

So I am going to go ahead respectfully disagree with your opinion. Even though you did state that it has been documented. Which is admittedly a hard argument to overcome. Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2021 at 10:47 AM, solitha said:

Last spring I took a college course, Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination...

It's kind of scary and I can't really blame anyone for being afraid to face it. Having one's world-view shaken is not a good feeling.

You have a weak mind and have been indoctrinated. That's all. One day hopefully you learn that not everything everyone tells you is true. Even if they seem to be a reputable source such as ones people like you still trust, like Colleges and the Mainstream Media. 

Edited by Devylknyght

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, solitha said:

And you're good with this. Thank you for making your position clear.

Who are you considering a minority? There are more women in my country, should I be considered a minority as a male?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Devylknyght said:

You have a weak mind and have been indoctrinated. That's all. One day hopefully you learn that not everything everyone tells you is true. Even if they seem to be a reputable source such as ones people like you still trust, like Colleges and the Mainstream Media. 

Yeah, sorry. You get added to my ignore list, because I really don't have time in my life to argue with someone who can only offer ad hominem and baseless "anti-elitism" when they hear an opposing view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Dia said:

Who are you considering a minority? There are more women in my country, should I be considered a minority as a male?

I think you're aware of the social connotations of the word. But if you like, use "historically oppressed group" or whatever gets the concept through better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncommon Patron

It's funny the most vitrol is focused on item #2 and all from a bunch of obviously white males.  LOL  

Clearly what they are saying is we are going to increase our outreach to make sure we are seeking and interviewing the best talent, no matter where it comes from.  That includes, but would not be exclusive to, all female colleges, HBCUs, or institutions with a high percentage of LGBTQ+ people.  It doesn't mean hiring those folks at the expense of white people (ahem, white males).  It means making sure you, as a company, are giving opportunities in the right places for folks to find you so you can find them.  Going to places you wouldn't have invested before to do campus recruiting, going to conferences you might otherwise have ignored, etc.  The natural tendency is to maximize your investment in expensive outreach to places where you get the most applicants (i.e. maybe a large university or a really large trade show).  But those are not always the best places to find the BEST talent, they tend to be the best places to find the MOST applicants. 

Any of you ever been to a place or in a situation where you interviewed 20 people and you really needed to fill a job, but you also really didn't feel like any of them were great candidates?  That's draining, and it sucks.  Is that because you didn't find a good fit?  Or is it because you weren't in the right spot or advertising in the right location to maximize your opportunity to find the best people?  I think they, like a lot of companies, have looked at their hiring practices and finally asked, are we really going to all the places we can to find the best candidates? 

And are there other ways they can contribute to outside institutions that are focused on increasing access to good educational and enrichment activities in these areas such as STEM, the arts, etc. that support our business goals?  That's the investments they are talking about. It's not a question of this or this, it's a question of this AND this.  

And good god, it doesn't mean hiring unqualified people for jobs or promoting people that are unqualified for jobs.  THAT reading is the bias you bring to the discussion in applying your filter to what you read.  We all do it.  But it's a narrow way to look at the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, solitha said:

Yeah, sorry. You get added to my ignore list, because I really don't have time in my life to argue with someone who can only offer ad hominem and baseless "anti-elitism" when they hear an opposing view.

LOL. YOU are adding someone to the ignore list because THEY can't handle an opposing view. Hilarious. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncommon Patron

Yeah, what consumers really want in a game is affirmative action! That's what gets 'em to buy and play. Has nothing to do with the content of the game, how fun it is, or any of that silliness. I demand the person who is coding my game has tits, or at least identifies as having them!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncommon Patron
On 10/31/2021 at 9:27 AM, Fireboy92k said:

It's funny the most vitrol is focused on item #2 and all from a bunch of obviously white males.  LOL  

Clearly what they are saying is we are going to increase our outreach to make sure we are seeking and interviewing the best talent, no matter where it comes from. 

 

Please explain what the color of a person's skin, or their gender, have to do with an objection to a policy? It seems like assuming their skin color somehow determines their opinion is, well...racist. If you disagree, I'd love an explanation as to why it isn't. Furthermore, most gamers in this country....hold on to your pantaloons now cuz this is gonna shock you....are...white males. As such, anyone objecting to any of these points is most likely a white male. "LOL"

 

"Clearly what they are saying is..."

No, that is clearly NOT what they are saying. We've had employment laws in this country for decades that REQUIRE companies to strive for equal opportunities in hiring. Failure to hire protected classes can and will get you in a whole lot of trouble with big brother, not to mention expose you to lawsuits. Companies already are, and have been for decades, required to have a plan in place to ensure they are striving to hire under-represented groups (females and minorities in this case). The reason most IT pros are males is because most people graduating with IT degrees are males and that is because most people interested in IT careers are males. You can't hire 50 women for 100 positions if only 20 women apply. That trend is changing, but only because more women are now entering the field. I wonder if it ever occurs to some people that a lot of what you see in the workforce is a reflection of personal choice and interests, rather than just defaulting to inane assumptions of racism and misogyny. I also wonder why nobody is up in arms that 50% of nurses aren't men, or that 50% of construction workers aren't women. It's very curious how the only time anyone wants to see equity in hiring is when it's a relatively safe and physically undemanding job.

Anyway, what Blizz is now saying is that they are NOT going to just hire whoever is most qualified, but rather quite the opposite. Their focus is going to be getting more women and LGBT people hired, which necessitates less focus on qualifications and more focus on gender and sexual orientation. Anyone who thinks what makes a better game is more vaginas, or more people who have a particular sexual orientation over another, is profoundly unintelligent. In and of itself, neither of those things necessarily makes a gaming company worse, either, but that's hardly the point. You hire people with the best talent and experience irrespective of immutable characteristics or sexual preferences.

Being that Blizz is gonna do what they're gonna do...I sincerely hope that their plan is a fantastic success. I doubt it will be and I think it's just pandering bullsh*t, but I hope it works out for the better, because honestly I just would like to see them producing some great content that I can enjoy while I am definitely 100% not thinking about whether the team that created it is comprised of the politically correct percentages of women and LGBT people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncommon Patron
23 hours ago, Migeru71 said:

Failure to hire protected classes can and will get you in a whole lot of trouble with big brother, not to mention expose you to lawsuits. Companies already are, and have been for decades, required to have a plan in place to ensure they are striving to hire under-represented groups (females and minorities in this case).

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about, or if you do, you explain it very poorly.  EEO laws have nothing to do with having to hire a diversified set of people.  What EEO laws are here:  Laws Enforced by EEOC | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and see Affirmative Action Plans - FindLaw

And I quote: 'Some government agencies and most government contractors (those with more than 50 employees and government contracts worth more than $50,000) are required to use affirmative action plans when hiring. Private companies are generally free to decide on their own, but employers that discover a lack of diversity in their ranks after performing an audit may find such plans useful.'

What they say is that you can't discriminate in a hiring decision against someone based on a protected class.  Is says obsoletely NOTHING about WHO you have to hire, what the composition of your workforce has to be, or how many people from any class you have to hire unless you are a federal agency or are a government contractor (which is not the same as doing business with the government).  If someone wants to sue a company because they believe the company violated EEO laws, the burden of proof is on the person doing the suing.  Provide a link to a factual source that shows otherwise.  

The rest of your argument completely falls apart after the mis-statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncommon Patron
16 hours ago, Fireboy92k said:

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about, or if you do, you explain it very poorly.  EEO laws have nothing to do with having to hire a diversified set of people.  What EEO laws are here:  Laws Enforced by EEOC | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and see Affirmative Action Plans - FindLaw

And I quote: 'Some government agencies and most government contractors (those with more than 50 employees and government contracts worth more than $50,000) are required to use affirmative action plans when hiring.

EEO laws have nothing to do with diversity, but EEO laws enforce affirmative action? What do you think affirmative action laws are designed to do, exactly? They are an effort to increase diversity in the workforce due to historical discrimination against minorities and women in hiring. The entire foundation of affirmative action laws is to ensure racial and gender equality in hiring (if that's not a diversity issue, then what is?). Blizzard's "new" policy is no different, with the unimportant distinction that LGBTQ people aren't yet a protected class in the federal EEO law unless you are a federal contractor. However, there's also the Civil Rights Act, which explicitly prohibits discrimination in hiring for the following protected classes:

From Title VII of the Civil Rights Act: "age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, *filtered*, sexual orientation, marriage and civil partnership, and pregnancy and maternity are now to be known as protected characteristics under Title VII."

From a prominent legal firm in California (Odell Law) that deals with discrimination cases: "In simple terms, affirmative action is a set of policies or practices that work to increase diversity, typically in education or employment."

What is Blizzard vowing to do? Hire more women and.....and.....members of a minority, protected class. While LGBTQ people are not a protected class in the federal EEO law for private employers, they are still considered a minority group (just ask them) AND Title VII covers that.

None of my argument "falls apart", as there was no "mis-statement", but rather a lack of understanding on your part. I hope this clears it up for you.

Edited by Migeru71

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncommon Patron

And I showed you where Affirmative Action only applies to the government and government contractors and not private businesses (more links provided at the bottom of this response to someplace other than a law firm, who by the way does MOST of their business on wrongful termination if you look at their website).  Private companies CAN have affirmative action plans and policies, but they are not REQUIRED to have them by Federal law.  EEO laws do make it illegal for all to discriminate in hiring practices based on the stated protected classes, which does not include LGBTQ+ members as you note.  They are separate yes, but they overlap.

No federal government agency or any other federal government group is going to come and give you crap as your statement as follows implies: 'Failure to hire protected classes can and will get you in a whole lot of trouble with big brother, not to mention expose you to lawsuits. Companies already are, and have been for decades, required to have a plan in place to ensure they are striving to hire under-represented groups (females and minorities in this case).'  That statement is just not true.  It may very well expose you to lawsuits from private organizations and individuals, but the burden of proof that they were discriminated against is on them, not the business being sued.

At the Federal level, Affirmative Action laws, in the case of employment, only apply to government agencies and government contractors.  There are other requirements in education, etc. and you state may very well have them, but in general what your saying about affirmative action requirements FOR A PRIVATE COMPANY form the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is not correct.

Activision/Blizzard does business in many states, so they may be subject to difference requirements at a state level and they may in fact CHOOSE to use those more restrictive practices company wide to but down on administrative burden.  But there is nothing illegal about the statements they have made or the programs they have suggested from the information provided.

If you don't like it, then take your subscription money someplace else.

Affirmative Action Laws: Everything You Need to Know (upcounsel.com)

Affirmative Action | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

Affirmative action in the United States - Wikipedia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2021 at 8:52 AM, Devylknyght said:

You have a weak mind and have been indoctrinated. That's all. One day hopefully you learn that not everything everyone tells you is true. Even if they seem to be a reputable source such as ones people like you still trust, like Colleges and the Mainstream Media. 

A "Fake News" impresario, I see.  Damn... you're a real [bad word]... in so many ways.

Edited by albabe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2022 at 2:35 PM, albabe said:

A "Fake News" impresario, I see.  Damn... you're a real [bad word]... in so many ways.

A very intelligent necro response. Thanks bro. Have a good one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2022 at 9:35 AM, Devylknyght said:

A very intelligent necro response. Thanks bro. Have a good one.

You're welcome, "Bro."  Compared to your insipid Pseudo-Corporate-Minded MAGAt dissertation, my response was Shakespeare.

xoxo

Edited by albabe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, albabe said:

You're welcome, "Bro."  Compared to your insipid Pseudo-Corporate-Minded MAGAt dissertation, my response was Shakespeare.

xoxo

Baaaaaah Baaaaaaah 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Starym
      Here's some potentially bad news for the sale of Activision Blizzard to Microsoft, as Politico is reporting that it is likely the US FTC will be filing a lawsuit to stop the acquisition - based on three sources "familiar with the matter". A lawsuit could postpone the deal's timing and even endanger it altogether, regardless of its result.
      The acquisition deal has seen a lot of pressure and antitrust probes coming from many sides (including several other countries' regulating bodies and watchdog organizations), as it could constitute an unfair boost for Microsoft's side. The most vocal voice against the sale is Microsoft's chief console competitor, Sony, who argues that the sale would open the door to making many Activision Blizzard games (mostly focusing on Call of Duty) exclusive to Microsoft platforms. This, Sony argues, would significantly disadvantage Sony platforms and leave consumers with less choices for gaming.
      A lawsuit challenging the deal is not guaranteed, and the FTC’s four commissioners have yet to vote out a complaint or meet with lawyers for the companies, two of the people said. However, the FTC staff reviewing the deal are skeptical of the companies’ arguments, those people said.
      The investigation remains ongoing, but much of the heavy lifting is completed, including depositions of Microsoft chief executive Satya Nadella and Activision head Bobby Kotick, the people with knowledge of the investigation said. If the agency does move ahead with a case, it could come as soon as next month, said the people, all of whom were granted anonymity to discuss a confidential matter.
      - Politico's Josh Sisco
      Well known gaming industry journalist Jason Schreier also weighed in on the story as well:
      You can read the full Politico article here, as it goes in to detail about both Microsoft and Sony's arguments so far, as well as Google and Epic's involvement.
    • By Starym
      A pretty big bombshell was dropped a couple of days ago, as Blizzard announced the end of their partnership with NetEase and a possible end of their games being available in China. We've seen the official posts and responses, but there's a lot of context missing there. Luckily for us, however, well known Chinese WoW community figure NasDa has jumped in to explain things and add some new information and even rumors. 
      There's actually quite a few new elements presented below, from a rumor of an (unlikely) potential  new partner for Blizzard,     an explanation on how exactly publishing and certification work in China and how long it takes, the potential Microsoft involvement, the fact that the last time Blizzard did something like this China got WotLK almost a year later, and more.
      The below is from a TwitLonger by NasDa:
      All the base knowlegde you need to know about this Blizzard-NetEase CATASTROPHE.
      - Foreign game companies must work with a domestic game publisher who will operate the game in China. That's why you never see CN region on Blizzard's map when a new patch is about to hit the live servers. CN region is basically in another "parallel universe". It's like peeing in a dark rainy night, you know it's definitely there, but you can't really tell where.

      - The publishing partner for Microsoft in China is NetEase, ironically.

      - Chinese law requires all digital games to receive a license from the regulator to be published in China.

      - In the past getting a game license is not an issue. Since last year it's been extremely difficult for any game, domestic or foreign, to receive a license, even more so for the latter. Last time a foreign title received a lisence was over 500 days ago. Popular ones like PUBG, Fortnite, Apex and Valorant still don't have their Chinese publishing licenses yet. All Tencent games.

      - China has resumed issuing new game licenses since April, for dometic games.

      - Changing a publishing partnership means re-applying for game licenses even if the games are already approved by the regulator and it could take months or even years.

      - This is the second time Blizzard changes their Chinese publishing partner. 14 years ago, Blizzard ended the partnership with their first partner, The 9, and then started worked with NetEase. Combining the process of re-applying for new game license for TBC expansion due to changing the partnership from The 9 to NetEase and the difficulty of getting a game license for WotLK expansion, the original Burning Crusade exapanion in CN region lasted for a total of 1090 days. Chinese players were forced to play LK pre-patch for 19 months. Imaging playing TBC for 3 whole years.

      NetEase launched WotLK expansion in CN region on 31/08/2010. Just giving you an idea of how late that was. Paragon killed Arthas on 26th of March 2010. LOL. This is one of the reasons why LK classics is so popular in China.

      Now you can see why Blizz and NetEase's "divorce" is widely considered to be a BLOODY CATASTROPHE by the Chinese community.

      - Potenital buyer or interesting parties:

      miHoYo, the developer of Genshin Impact, has denies the rumors of licensing deal with Blizzard;

      Tencent replied that there was no relevant news internally for the time being;

      Perfect world is another hot candidate according to rumors;

      My source told me(and it's a good source), ByteDance, the parent company of Tiktok will be the successor or at least in the lead.

      "Does ByteDance have any experience of operating a game before?" Ye, that was my first question but I guess time will tell.

      - NetEase has promised that they will be issuing refund for all the players that still have remaining blizzard bucks and active game time in their accounts.

      - After 24th of Jan. all Blizzard services in China will be shutting down. I still don't know what to do after that and where to play wow yet.

      Thanks a lot to NasDa for all this information and I really do hope something can be done before January 23rd, as I cannot even imagine simply losing your entire WoW account, not to mention other Blizzard games - even temporarily, and especially with the potential of it being permanently gone. There are so many Chinese players who are part of the WoW community it would truly be a tragedy to see them lose everything they worked, a decade+ of time invested into the game could simply disappear.
    • By Staff
      Update: there's now also a very interesting comment from the NetEase Global Investment and Partnership President, which you can find at the bottom of the article.

      We now also have two NetEase messages to their Blizzard game players, detailing exactly what will happen on January 24th, when their license ends, from the Battle.net client being shut down, to support of new releases before that date, what will happen to character data and more. 

      Thanks to Neo once again for translating the below statement. 
      NetEase (Source)
      To all of you, dear Blizzard gamers.
      Thank you for your continued support and love of Blizzard products. We are honored to have worked with you for 14 years to create and share an unforgettable gaming experience, and once again, we thank you most sincerely!
      Due to the expiration of our agreement with Blizzard Entertainment, World of Warcraft, Hearthstone Legend, Overwatch Return, Diablo III, StarCraft II, Warcraft III: Remastered, Heroes of the Storm (collectively referred to as "Blizzard products"), which are operated by Shanghai NetEase Network Technology Development Co, will terminate operation at 0:00 on January 24, 2023, and we hereby notify you of the following matters related to the termination of operation in mainland China.
      November 23, 2022 onwards, we will close Blizzard game products in Battle.net and the client paid service and user registration portal.
      During the period from November 23, 2022 to January 23, 2023, the servers of Blizzard game products will be open normally, and the content update of World of Warcraft "Dragonflight", Hearthstone Legend "The March Of The Lich King" and "Overwatch Return Season 2" will be available as usual, and users can continue to log in and experience the game content. At the same time, users will still be able to spend their Battle.net points and virtual currency on their accounts.
      From 0:00 on January 24, 2023, the operation of Blizzard game products will be officially stopped, Battle.net login and all game servers will be closed, as well as the client download.
      After the game servers are closed, all account data and character data in each game (including but not limited to character data, remaining game time, each game's items, materials, subscription and paid information, etc.) will be sealed. We will properly handle the game data in accordance with the requirements of laws and regulations to protect the legitimate rights and interests of users. For players who have paid but not used all online game virtual currency and paid game time (if any) that has not yet expired, we will start to arrange refunds after Blizzard game products cease operation.
      ...
      Dear Blizzard gamers:
      Due to the expiration of Activision Blizzard's license agreement with NetEase on January 23, 2023, Blizzard will discontinue most of its game services in mainland China (including World of Warcraft, Hearthstone Legend, Overwatch Returned, Diablo III, StarCraft II, Heroes of the Storm) starting January 24 at 00:00, based on contractual restrictions, while Diablo: Immortal's service will not be affected.
      NetEase and Blizzard first partnered in 2008. Over the past 14 years, we have introduced Blizzard's high-quality games to China step by step, starting with World of Warcraft, and even synchronizing global release. With each introduction of a new game, we were excited, because these games also carry our passion and youth.
      Within NetEase, there are also several thousand hard-core fans of Blizzard games. Therefore, we are more empathetic to the feelings of players at this moment. Before today, we had been doing our best and negotiating with Blizzard in good faith to seek continued cooperation in mainland China. However, after long negotiations, we were still unable to reach agreement with Activision Blizzard on some key terms of cooperation. Unfortunately, Activision Blizzard has announced earlier today that they are ceasing its cooperation and we will have to accept this decision. After January 23, 2023, NetEase will lose its distributorship and will no longer be able to continue to manage and operate these games that have carried players' memories for 14 years.
      Next, NetEase Games will do its best to fulfill its responsibilities and serve players until the last moment. We promise that we will do our best to negotiate with Activision Blizzard to protect the interests of Chinese players to the greatest extent possible for the issues related to refunds, game data, virtual property, game rights, etc. that everyone is concerned about.
      At the same time, we will work with Activision Blizzard to achieve "business to business, game to game", pay attention to the voice of players, value all that players who have paid for the game, and properly protect everyone's game assets and memories. We will continue to inform players of the progress of the work through official channels such as the "Blizzard Game Service Center". Once again, we thank all players for their understanding and support. If possible, we hope that Blizzard's departure is only temporary. After the shutdown, we will continue to hold on in our own way and not give up lightly. We believe that those who meet can meet again.
      It seems there may have indeed  been some behind-the-scenes drama, as NetEase Global Investment and Partnership President Simon Zhu talked about his own characters and a certain "jerk" that caused or affected this outcome, over on his LinkedIn.

    • By Staff
      Update: NetEase have now issued statements to their players, explaining what exactly will be happening in the next months and after the license expires.

      Blizzard have announced that they will be suspending "most Blizzard game services in mainland China", as they did not renew their licensing agreement with NetEase. This includes World of Warcraft, Hearthstone, Warcraft III: Reforged, Overwatch, the StarCraft series, Diablo III, and Heroes of the Storm.

      Originally spotted by chaud on MMO Champion.
      Chinese Publishing (Source)
      Certain games will no longer be available at end of license with NetEase on January 23, 2023
      IRVINE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Nov. 16, 2022-- Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. announced today that it will be suspending most Blizzard game services in mainland China due to the expiration of the current licensing agreements with NetEase, Inc. on January 23, 2023. This includes World of Warcraft®, Hearthstone®, Warcraft® III: Reforged, Overwatch®, the StarCraft® series, Diablo III®, and Heroes of the Storm®. Diablo Immortal® co-development and publishing is covered under a separate agreement between the two companies.
      Blizzard Entertainment has had licensing agreements with NetEase since 2008, covering the publication of these Blizzard titles in China. The two parties have not reached a deal to renew the agreements that is consistent with Blizzard’s operating principles and commitments to players and employees, and the agreements are set to expire in January 2023.
      We will suspend new sales in the coming days and Chinese players will be receiving details of how this will work soon. Upcoming releases for World of Warcraft: Dragonflight, Hearthstone: March of the Lich King, and season 2 of Overwatch 2 will proceed later this year.
      “We’re immensely grateful for the passion our Chinese community has shown throughout the nearly 20 years we’ve been bringing our games to China through NetEase and other partners,” said Mike Ybarra, president, Blizzard Entertainment. “Their enthusiasm and creativity inspire us, and we are looking for alternatives to bring our games back to players in the future.”
       
      About Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.
      Best known for iconic video game universes including Warcraft®, Overwatch®, Diablo®, and StarCraft®, Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. (www.blizzard.com), a division of Activision Blizzard (NASDAQ: ATVI), is a premier developer and publisher of entertainment experiences. Blizzard Entertainment has created some of the industry’s most critically acclaimed and genre-defining games over the last 30 years, with a track record that includes multiple Game of the Year awards. Blizzard Entertainment engages tens of millions of players around the world with titles available on PC via Battle.net®, Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo Switch, iOS, and Android.
      Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-looking Statements: The statements contained herein that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements including, but not limited to statements of our plans and objectives, including those related to releases of products or services. Activision Blizzard, Inc. generally uses words such as “outlook,” “forecast,” “will,” “could,” “should,” “would,” “to be,” “plan,” “aims,” “believes,” “may,” “might,” “expects,” “intends,” “seeks,” “anticipates,” “estimate,” “future,” “positioned,” “potential,” “project,” “remain,” “scheduled,” “set to,” “subject to,” “upcoming,” and the negative version of these words and other similar words and expressions to help identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are subject to business and economic risks, reflect management’s current expectations, estimates, and projections about our business, and are inherently uncertain and difficult to predict.
      We caution that a number of important factors, many of which are beyond our control, could cause our actual future results and other future circumstances to differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statements. Such factors include, but are not limited to: the expected effect of the expiration of the agreement with NetEase, Inc.; the effect of the announcement or pendency of the proposed transaction with Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) on our business relationships, operating results, and business generally; risks that the proposed transaction with Microsoft disrupts our current plans and operations and potential difficulties in employee retention as a result of the proposed transaction with Microsoft; the global impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and other macroeconomic factors (including, without limitation, the potential for significant short- and long-term global unemployment and economic weakness and a resulting impact on global discretionary spending; potential strain on the retailers, distributors, and manufacturers who sell our physical products to customers and the platform providers on whose networks and consoles certain of our games are available; effects on our ability to release our content in a timely manner and with effective quality control; effects on our ability to prevent cyber-security incidents while our workforce is dispersed; effects on the operations of our professional esports leagues; and macroeconomic impacts arising from the long duration of the COVID-19 pandemic, including labor shortages and supply chain disruptions); our ability to consistently deliver popular, high-quality titles in a timely manner, which has been made more difficult as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic; our ability to attract, retain, and motivate skilled personnel; risks and uncertainties of conducting business outside the United States (the “U.S.”), including the need for regulatory approval to operate; risks relating to behavior of our distributors, retailers, development, and licensing partners, or other affiliated third parties that may harm our brands or business operations; our reliance on tools and technologies owned by third parties; outages, disruptions or degradations in our services, products, and/or technological infrastructure; data breaches, fraudulent activity, and other cybersecurity risks; increasing regulation in key territories; regulation relating to the Internet, including potential harm from laws impacting “net neutrality;” regulation concerning data privacy, including China’s Personal Information Protection Law; insolvency or business failure of any of our business partners, which has been magnified as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic; and the other factors included in Part I, Item 1A “Risk Factors” of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
      The forward-looking statements contained herein are based on information available to Activision Blizzard, Inc. as of the date of this filing, and we assume no obligation to update any such forward-looking statements. Actual events or results may differ from those expressed in forward-looking statements. As such, you should not rely on forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. We have based the forward-looking statements contained herein primarily on our current expectations and projections about future events and trends that we believe may affect our business, financial condition, operating results, prospects, strategy, and financial needs. These statements are not guarantees of our future performance and are subject to risks, uncertainties, and other factors, some of which are beyond our control and may cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations.
       
      View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20221116006090/en/
      Andrew Reynolds
      [email protected]
      Source: Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.
    • By Staff
      NetEase has now responded to Blizzard's press release about the suspension of their game services in China and the end of their licensing agreement with NetEase, as reported by the Kechuangban Daily, via CaiLianShe (财联社).
      [NetEase] has been doing its best to negotiate with Activision Blizzard, hoping to promote the renewal of the contract. After a long period of negotiations, we still could not reach agreement with Activision Blizzard on some key terms of cooperation. We regret that Activision Blizzard today announced that it will cease cooperation, and we will have to accept this decision. NetEase will continue to fulfill its responsibilities and serve the players until the last moment. A big thanks to Neo for the translation and for finding the announcement. 
×
×
  • Create New...