Activision Blizzard Terminates Its CFO, Netflix Poaches Him


As the year comes to a close, Activision Blizzard is making headlines with their announcement that it intends on terminating Chief Financial Officer Spencer Neumann for “cause unrelated to the company’s financial reporting or disclosure controls and procedures.” Mr. Neumann has not officially been terminated and has been offered the opportunity to demonstrate why cause does not exist to terminate his employment, however should he leave he will be replaced by acting CCO Dennis Durkin.

The news dropped in the form of a filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission today:

“Mr. Neumann has been placed on a paid leave of absence from the Company pending an opportunity for him to demonstrate why cause does not exist to terminate his employment or why termination of his employment is not otherwise justified.  In light of the above, effective January 1, 2019, Mr. Dennis Durkin, our Chief Corporate Officer, will assume the duties of the principal financial officer (Chief Financial Officer) of the Company.  In the event Mr. Neumann ultimately ceases to be the Chief Financial Officer, then Mr. Durkin will become the Chief Financial Officer.  Mr. Durkin, 48, joined the Company in March 2012 as Chief Financial Officer and served in that role until May 2017.  He has served in the role of Chief Corporate Officer since May 2017 through the present.”

Mr. Neumann may have brighter prospects on the horizon outside of Activision Blizzard’s corporate shenanigans, as the news also broke that Netflix is looking to bring him on board to serve as their own Chief Financial Officer.

Activision Blizzard stocks started the year at $64.31 USD, peaked at $83.39 in October, and has since dropped to a low of $46.57 at the close of the market today. The decline marks a sharp turn from the steady increase in Activision’s stock over the past two decades.

*URGENT PSA* Recording/Overlay Software Is Causing Permanent Destiny 2 Bans


(Update: Bungie’s PC Project Lead has called this “Internet BS.”)

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

It looks like certain recording software is triggering permanent bans in Destiny 2 on PC.

Head on over to the Bungie forums and you’ll find tons of posts from players reporting that they’ve been banned within hours, some within minutes of booting up Destiny 2 for the first time, some before even making it into the game. According to an FAQ on the official website, software with “overlay” features is incompatible with Destiny 2 due to security features programmed into the game to stop how certain cheats are injected into the game code. While the website uses the term “incompatible,” it doesn’t actually state that using said software regardless might be a bannable offense.

Well it is. Permanently.

The list of “incompatible” programs includes the Nvidia Geforce Experience, Fraps, Discord, Mumble, Afterburner, and more. Virtually any program with some sort of overlay feature is incompatible to some extent with the game. And to top it off, according to numerous users affected by these bans for game overlays, Bungie support is doing absolutely nothing to help. According to Bungie’s support, they will not review bans under any circumstance:

There are NO options to dispute or overturn account restrictions or bans. Permanent account bans are only implemented with rigorous checking to ensure that the innocent are not punished alongside the guilty. Bungie does not comment on or discuss individual account restriction or bans.

If players are getting immediately banned for overlay software, that makes Bungie’s claim of “rigorous checking” a complete lie. Bungie might want to check their policy at the door in this case, because they are looking at a PR disaster and very likely some litigation if the issue is as widespread as it appears.

As of yet, none of Bungie’s social media accounts have acknowledged the bans, nor have any staff posted on the forums. MMO Fallout is attempting to get in touch with Bungie/Activision for contact and will follow up once we have more information. Please note that this is technically unconfirmed on our end, but the sheer number of people claiming bans for the same issue has led us to issue this warning.

Activision Patents Using Matchmaking To Encourage Microtransactions


Can you imagine playing a game where you’re never quite sure whether or not the game is intentionally pitting you against more skilled enemies to better advertise spending real money on more powerful weaponry? Activision can, they patented it.

Discovered by Rolling Stone, the patent relates to matchmaking systems and driving microtransactions in said games. There is no concrete proof that this system has been used in any existing Activision title. The patent offers way to use matchmaking in order to drive microtransaction purposes, by specifically pairing players who own DLC items with those who do not, with the goal of exposing said items to potential new customers.

One example of this implementation involves matching a low skill player with a high skill player who happens to own a cash shop weapon in order to encourage the lower skill player to buy said item. Say for instance if the system determines that a player is trying to become an expert sniper, as the patent describes. He could be placed in the match with a higher skilled sniper who also owns some sniper DLC weapons and maybe that player will buy some weapons of their own.

“The system may include a microtransaction arrange matches to influence game-related purchases. For instance, the system may match a more expert/marquee player with a junior player to encourage the junior player to make game-related purchases of items possessed/used by the marquee player. A junior player may wish to emulate the marquee player by obtaining weapons or other items used by the marquee player.”

Another implementation would have players with a microtransaction item that is currently on sale be paired with players who do not own such item, in order to promote said sale.

Microtransaction engine 128 may analyze various items used by marquee players and, if at least one of the items is currently being offered for sale (with or without a promotion), match the marquee player with another player (e.g., a junior player) that does not use or own the item. Similarly, microtransaction engine 128 may identify items offered for sale, identify marquee players that use or possess those items, and match the marquee players with other players who do not use or possess those items. In this manner, microtransaction engine 128 may leverage the matchmaking abilities described herein to influence purchase decisions for game-related purchases.

The system isn’t all about making more money, though. Other implementations of the patent involve matchmaking in regards to matching players up with friends/clans, placing emphasis on players who spend a long time in matchmaking, and matching performance based on skill in a more accurate way. In another example, the system can determine a player’s preferred game mode and steer them toward those servers in matchmaking.

Activision has denied in a statement that this patent has been put to use in any of its games, claiming that it “was an exploratory patent filed in 2015 by an R&D team working independently from our game studios.”

You can read the entire patent here,

(Our thoughts: Let’s go on a limb here and take Activision’s statement as fact that this has never been implemented. They’ve painted a target on their backs of a company willing, and now capable, of secretly putting such a system in their games.)

Call of Duty Gets Slammed In Steam Ratings In Open Beta


The Call of Duty World War 2 beta is officially live on PC, and Steam players are not happy. Just hours into the beta being available, the game is already sinking in reviews with 30% (of more than five thousand reviews) as of this writing having a positive outlook on the title. While there are plenty of reviews that are simply trolling or missing context, the general contention among the crowd of haters relates to performance issues, matchmaking problems, and the game just generally being “another Call of Duty.”

A thread has popped up on the forums asking players for bug reports regarding performance issues. It appears that the developers are paying attention, and are not happy with the early review scores, noting:

NOTE: Please don’t review the game without actually giving it a try, it’s unfair to the developers when you rate a game beacuse of an issue that could very well be your own.

The latest Call of Duty title is going to have to work hard to bring PC users back after Infinite Warfare virtually bombed on the system in 2016. Steam charts show that Infinite Warfare peaked at 15,312 on launch, barely three thousand more than Battleborn. Its accompanying title, Modern Warfare Remastered, peaked at just under 1,400 on launch. Both titles carry a “mostly negative” rating with less than 40% positive reviews, and Modern Warfare Remastered has dropped below a full Battlefield server in terms of peak concurrent users. Raven Software, who worked on the PC version of Infinite Warfare, is also working on the PC version of WW2. Steam Spy suggests that less than half a million people own Infinite Warfare on Steam.

Orion Project Back On Steam After DMCA Takedown


orion

The Orion Project is once again available on Steam after its removal from Steam over allegations of copyright theft. Developer Trek Industries found itself on the defensive earlier this week when Valve removed their game from sale, responding to a DMCA takedown notice by Activision claiming that several guns from Orion were stolen from more than one Call of Duty title.

Trek Industries initially denied the claim, threatening legal action against Activision and calling their DMCA notice illegal. The developer later retracted their claims once comparisons surfaced of the guns in question, announcing that the artist responsible has been fired and that they would be complying with Activision’s complaint.

Orion can be found on Steam for a discount during the Steam sale.

(Source: Steam)

The Takedown of Orion: Answering The Call of Duty


ahaha3neuod

Orion developer David James is threatening a counter-suit after a DMCA takedown notice from Activision resulted in Orion being removed from sale on Steam during one of the larger sales of the year. The takedown notice alleges that Orion stole assets from Call of Duty: Black Ops III and Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare.

James has uploaded his own comparisons of the weapons in Orion to the weapons in Call of Duty, but the truth seems to go a bit deeper. Community members have been creating their own comparisons that show a more damning story.

JsTjC3n

3Rngtz8

The allegations against Orion would be more surprising if this were the first time that the developer had been accused of content theft, and it isn’t. Spiral Game Studios has been the focus of numerous scandals in the course of its existence. Their previous title, Orion: Dino Beatdown was alleged to use stolen assets from several games. In his responses, James conduct readily slips into immature schoolyard banter (emphasis mine).

We need everyones help and support to rectify this immediately as this erroneous claim has already costed what is a very small team a significant amount of money and we need it remedied ASAP so we can get back to work on real content, something that Activision should take note of.

What Activision is claiming isn’t a valid or legal use of DMCA. If they were alleging that we had actually RIPPED the Black Ops 3 weapons FROM their game and used them exactly – their shipped meshes, their shipped textures – that is a DMCA case. And the fact that they made an artist feel this way when it’s ALL they do is absolute crap.

On a side note: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act criminalizes production of technology that circumvents digital rights management. Title II of the DMCA provides limited liability for content hosts if they respond to a takedown notice and remove said offending material within a certain period of time. James is incorrect in his statement that DMCA is not valid in this case.

Alternately, you can check out Orion’s original character: Bloba Fett (not his actual name). And yes, the name of the video is Every Man’s Sky, a polar opposite of that game No Man’s Sky. You may have even noticed the name of the developer, Trek Industries.

05wXy6q

When it comes to copyright, the law is very lenient when it comes to ‘real’ things. You can’t sue for making similar looking trees, for instance. In regards to inventions that don’t have any real world counterpart, the law is more strict. The Orion gun, shown below, appears to be cobbled together out of several Black Ops 3 weapons.

XAJQAHV

The case appears to be open and shut, however we will have to see how Trek Industries responds and whether or not Activision decides to push this into a full lawsuit.

(Source: Steam)

Fandango Drops Two Behind The Scenes Warcraft Videos


487579

The Warcraft movie opens this Friday, June 10th with many movie-goers picking up their tickets (or ordering them online) for Thursday night. Those who opt to see Warcraft in theaters will be able to pick up a copy of World of Warcraft with their movie ticket absolutely free, and Box Office Mojo reports that the film has brought in $70 million internationally ahead of the American release.

If you’re a fan of the behind the scenes fun, Fandango has created a couple of short videos along with a few of the film’s stars. Watch Rob Kazinsky (Orgrim) show Krisitan Harloff how to walk like an Orc. Alternative, Travis Fimmel (Anduin Lothar), Paula Patton (Garona), Toby Kebbell (Durotan), and Rob Kazinsky team up to see who can answer the most Warcraft trivia.

Are you planning on seeing the Warcraft movie this week? For our viewers outside of America, have you seen it yet? Drop a comment in the box below and let us know.

(Source: Fandango #1, Fandango #2)

[Column] Black Ops III And Genius Marketing


2016-02-27_00002

Call of Duty is one of those franchises that never sees coverage here at MMO Fallout, for obvious reasons. With that in mind, I need to take a moment out of our regularly scheduled programming to discuss the marketing genius behind the Black Ops III multiplayer starter pack, and to also explain why this concept needs to become a semi-regular promotion and also make its way to consoles. Activision is taking its marketing with a one-two punch that should, if all goes well, give a nice boost to sales on the PC.

First, what am I talking about. Nearly ten days ago, Activision introduced the Black Ops III Multiplayer Starter Pack for a paltry $15 on Steam. The pack is exactly what it sounds like, access to multiplayer with some restrictions. No campaign, no zombies, and you can’t prestige, play custom games, access mod support, no Dead Ops Arcade, or Nightmare mode. Tit for tat, this is as barebones as it gets: Ranked multiplayer. If you decide to upgrade to the full game, your $15 is taken off of the total price.

The package makes absolute sense on PC, where Activision has to contend with a tidal wave of established competition that is either free to play or damn near close. In order to make real headway on PC, Activision must rely on the Steam platform where established titles like Counter Strike: GO dominate the genre and the charts. It also makes sense if the company wishes to remain viable on the platform as a whole. At launch, Black Ops III averaged 24 thousand concurrent players on PC. Two months later, in January, that number had dropped to 14 thousand.

2016-02-27_00001

And help this game needs, since outside of Team Deathmatch and Domination, the game modes on PC are virtually abandoned at non-peak hours. Even on weekends, and after the release of the starter pack, it isn’t out of the ordinary to see multiple game modes stuck at 0%, with no one playing or willing to join to spark some traffic.

So by reducing the price of entry to $15, Activision brings in all kinds of players who would have otherwise not purchased the game, as you can see by the glut of players in the match above that only own the game because of the pack. Even if 90% of these players eventually quit without buying anything else, they still contributed $15 more per person than they would have had the pack not existed. In all likelihood, Activision views the pack as an easy point of entry: Those who would have waited for a heavy Steam sale to buy the game will likely stick around and even purchase the full game upgrade, while those who had just enough interest to toss in for the starter pack are salvaged customers.

The increase in population also gives incentive and boosts the likelihood that existing players will continue playing, and hopefully buy the season pass and customization pack if they haven’t already.

But, not to let this campaign die, Activision is ending the promotion with the second part of their one-two punch, a free weekend. Think of the free weekend as a boost to the stepping stone that is the multiplayer pack. Free weekends are like a sample station at the grocery store. They attract people who have no interest in buying the full product and, through the power of free stuff, hope to change their minds. So you play a few rounds of Black Ops, have a bit of fun, and oh hey the game is on sale for $40. Too much? Why not just keep playing the multiplayer for $15 and decide if you want to upgrade later? Cool.

So by that logic, the starter pack acts as something of a negotiating tool, with the full game upgrade splitting the cost and making the whole package look cheaper by comparison. Sure, you’re still paying the sale price of $40 total, but you put down $15 and start playing over the weekend, and then the sale is coming to an end but you can still upgrade to the full game for $24. Twenty four bucks for zombies, campaign, and everything else you’re missing? What a deal! At least, that’s the intended thought process of the promotion.

The promotion, and the availability of the starter pack, are gone come this week, so I have to say I am very interested to see where Activision goes with this type of package. There has been speculation for years now of Call of Duty cutting up its game modes into separate but cheaper packages, and there is no doubt that the numbers from this short lived campaign are going to be run through a gauntlet and have a heavy influence on the franchise’s future marketing.

Do you agree? Let us know in the comments.

World of Warcraft Drops To 5.6 Million Subscribers


draenor

Activision Blizzard has officially posted their second quarter results for 2015, and the results are in the title of this article. While revenues grew year over year, to $1.04 billion from $970 million in the second quarter 2014, World of Warcraft once again saw a drop in subscriber figures: Down to 5.6 million from the 7.1 million reported last quarter and 10 million the quarter before. Once again Blizzard pointed to the “eastern market” for the brunt of the losses, noting that subscribers stabilized with the launch of Fury of Hellfire.

“Our strategic focus on expanding our franchise portfolio with captivating and original new intellectual property, innovating on new platforms, and expanding into new geographies is reflected in our results. We outperformed our Q2 targets and last year’s results on revenues, digital growth, and earnings per share. These strong results and the excitement for our future games have driven us to raise our full-year outlook.”
-Bobby Kotick, CEO

The report also market the “most active” second quarter in company history in regards to engagement and digital monetization.

Activision’s big earner Destiny launches its next expansion, Taken King, which will remove the leveling system that uses light and replace it with standard experience. Bungie also announced through Game Informer that Peter Dinklage will no longer be voicing Ghost, with Nolan North re-recording all of his previous dialogue.

(Source: Activision report)

[Rant] Shame On Activision/Bungie


10658784_10152733791889600_647848678133423377_o

MMO Fallout doesn’t appear on Metacritic or Gamerankings, and it never will. Those of you who read our MMOments pieces will know that I refuse to attach a numerical score to my reviews, because the criteria for scoring differs between reviewers and the number is ultimately meaningless and only serves as troll-bait for the inevitable flame war courtesy of our friends in the perpetual hate machine. I also have a measured disdain for Metacritic, who treat all ratings as the same on a percentage scale and, when called out on their inaccuracy, flat out deny that the point scale differs between reviewers.

Destiny currently stands with less than an 80 on Gamerankings as publications continue to come out with reviews labeling the game as “good, but not great.” That’s cool, these reviewers are entitled to their opinions just as you or I are. According to an article I read on VG247, review scores may have cost Bungie $2.5 million in bonuses that would have been paid out had the title achieved higher than a 90% overall rating. The clause was revealed way back when Activision was embroiled in a lawsuit with Call of Duty developers Vince and Zampella.

Let me just say, shame on Activision for putting this clause into their contract and shame on Bungie for accepting it. Tying bonuses to performance is a standard in business, but if you’re going to hold money over a developer’s head, do it in return for sales. The fact that Destiny sold more than $300 million in the first five days should dwarf any talk about review scores, especially when this same panel of apparent experts you’re sticking up on a pedestal generally can’t even agree with one another on what constitutes a good game.

The problem here isn’t with Metacritic or Gamerankings, inaccurate as they may be. The issue lies with an industry that is dependent on the scores of a few people to measure their success, with developers refusing to hire people unless they worked on a game with sufficient ratings, or publishers using the scoring system as a method of withholding deserved money from developers. You’re not making a game for the reviewers, unless you are in which case you may want to rethink your choice of careers. You’re making video games because you hopefully enjoy them yourselves, and you want to sell them to gamers who will enjoy them. To put more weight on the approval of a handful of writers, most of whom have little more qualifications than the simple fact that they have an audience, rather than the purchasing power of the market is not only short-sighted, it’s self destructive in the long term.

If Michael Bay’s performance was based on review scores, his movies would be considered utter failures, but I get the feeling that Bay can’t hear his critics from under the mountains of money that he pulls in with the movies that he directs, not to mention the smaller mountains of money from the movies that he produces. Michael Bay doesn’t care that film critics don’t like his movies, because he doesn’t base his success on the opinion of critics. Age of Extinction broke $1 billion worldwide, I somehow doubt that Paramount Pictures is going to be withholding his bonus because the film didn’t get a 90% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Otherwise I have no strong feelings on the topic.