CEO is a professional job title and people just go from being CEO of this company to CEO of that company for the later part of their careers.
Maybe do some research before you call people "fucking delusional" and then come out with your own dogmatic view of how to become a CEO
Edit: Most people in high power jobs and positions are genuine Psychopaths and used the traits gained from being one to throw everyone else under the bus on the way up the ladder all whilst wondering why no one else is doing the same things as they are.
In truth most Psychopaths don't even know they are one and the general "violent psycho" movie thing is a myth because it's not even the same personality disorder. Chances are in a family of 5 one is a Psycho or has tenancies at least.
Yea so all your middle/high management upwards are probably Psycho's and maybe even your mum, dad or sister too.
I forget what the psychs call it, but there's a specific effect where people see another person in a position which suggests that person is more accomplished or successful, and the brain reflexively searches for reasons the person is NOT, in fact, better suited than themselves. The phenomenon that leads people to conclude CEOs got there by nepotism is ironically the same one that has people spamming comments about how the game is pure RNG and tournament winners and high players are only where they are because of luck or playing "bullshit" decks.
Just sit back, grab some popcorn, and enjoy the show.
Jesus f..king Christ, Donald, please, learn to read. I'm just saying it is stupid to take for granted these people ALWAYS deserve the money they earn, when we know f...king shit about them. Do you understand now?
Have you seen a how much the CEO at Activision Blizzard makes in a year? The problem isn't in buying packs of cards, the company is a locust of the gaming world, a parasite that leeches IP till they shrivel up and die.
I so wish Blizzard never joined with Activision but they did and so you'll see games like HS and Warcraft etc monitised even further than they are already until they deem it no longer worth sustaining then they'll be gone.
You'd be better off buying no packs and sending the message that you are unhappy with their business practices and put your money towards more worthwhile games or causes.
Yea, and this same logic doesn't go for any other company. That's why people still watch Television, buy cell phones, Nikes, Cars, etc.
Most gaming companies dont want to make big games anymore, which require tons of man hours to polish. Everyone wants to get on the games as a service and micro transaction wagon, which is feasible with way less costs for HR. Valve, EA, Ubisoft, Activision they are all lookijg for the best way to have the lowest effort for the highest return. Blizzard has not released a true full game since Diablo 3 and apperantly has no intention to do so in the near future. If you (like me) think that this is not what gaming should be about then we have only one choice: Stop spending extreme money on cheap shit. Hearthstone is a fun game and all but is does not come close to the effort Blizzard has made for past games.
Obviously, you work up to it but once you become one you don't go back down, you just go across and end up somewhere else
Yeah, like for example, in your best friend's company. :D
XD XD.
I mean yes that is likely I am not disputing that bit, but not necessarily.
The real problem comes when your CEO is not from your industry and has 0 clue what the consumer base wants. Like Activisons is definitely not a guy who built himself up in a gaming company, he probably ran some FTSE 100 company and they offered him fuck loads of money to come and make them fuck loads of money.
I think once you are in enough profit as a company you shouldn't need investors to give you money because you have loads already and should be investing in yourself/ your products and you shouldn't have shareholders (or ones outside the company at least) because they just cost you loads of money.
Corporations will run and own the world one day and there is fuck all we can do about it. The avarice of the few will ruin things for the many, it's already begun.
Obviously, you work up to it but once you become one you don't go back down, you just go across and end up somewhere else
Yeah, like for example, in your best friend's company. :D
XD XD.
I mean yes that is likely I am not disputing that bit, but not necessarily.
The real problem comes when your CEO is not from your industry and has 0 clue what the consumer base wants. Like Activisons is definitely not a guy who built himself up in a gaming company, he probably ran some FTSE 100 company and they offered him fuck loads of money to come and make them fuck loads of money.
I think once you are in enough profit as a company you shouldn't need investors to give you money because you have loads already and should be investing in yourself/ your products and you shouldn't have shareholders (or ones outside the company at least) because they just cost you loads of money.
Corporations will run and own the world one day and there is fuck all we can do about it. The avarice of the few will ruin things for the many, it's already begun.
I'm glad we can end this discussion in good terms, SamHobbs494. :)
Obviously, you work up to it but once you become one you don't go back down, you just go across and end up somewhere else
Yeah, like for example, in your best friend's company. :D
XD XD.
I mean yes that is likely I am not disputing that bit, but not necessarily.
The real problem comes when your CEO is not from your industry and has 0 clue what the consumer base wants. Like Activisons is definitely not a guy who built himself up in a gaming company, he probably ran some FTSE 100 company and they offered him fuck loads of money to come and make them fuck loads of money.
I think once you are in enough profit as a company you shouldn't need investors to give you money because you have loads already and should be investing in yourself/ your products and you shouldn't have shareholders (or ones outside the company at least) because they just cost you loads of money.
Corporations will run and own the world one day and there is fuck all we can do about it. The avarice of the few will ruin things for the many, it's already begun.
I'm glad we can end this discussion in good terms, SamHobbs494. :)
Me too, I see you comment on a lot of threads and as a whole agree with you.
The big issue in Activision-Blizzard, for me, is that is NOT customer related. They takes decisions and fuck-off. In a market were there was few competitors that was fine. Now no. The competition today is huge and there are a lot of companies that are totally customers related, and they are developing games based on what his buyers want. Since Blizzard will not understand that, will fail. Blizzard can not think of being God because he made Diablo and Warcraft and always fucking his buyers.
I personally think that most of the old and new Blizzard's customers like now are very angry with Blizzard. (I am not talking about only Hearthstone, but about everything, see the new Diablo mobile for example)
Do you guys have phones? That is what a company totally out of his customers could say.
Activision-blizzard is getting exactly what it deserved and I have pity only for the developers out there. What the hell did Corporate think was going to happen after ruining all their most popular IPs in search of more profit?
This is the definition of being too greedy and if video games thought me one thing it's that greed rarely pays off.
It's sad to see a company such as Blizzard struggling like this but I hope this industry shake-up finally makes these companies learn that fucking their customers over isn't really a viable business practice
I forget what the psychs call it, but there's a specific effect where people see another person in a position which suggests that person is more accomplished or successful, and the brain reflexively searches for reasons the person is NOT, in fact, better suited than themselves. The phenomenon that leads people to conclude CEOs got there by nepotism is ironically the same one that has people spamming comments about how the game is pure RNG and tournament winners and high players are only where they are because of luck or playing "bullshit" decks.
Just sit back, grab some popcorn, and enjoy the show.
Jesus f..king Christ, Donald, please, learn to read. I'm just saying it is stupid to take for granted these people ALWAYS deserve the money they earn, when we know f...king shit about them. Do you understand now?
Do not bother with those two dude, Activision's big black PR is so far deep into their throats that they cannot think critically when it comes to these subjects. Do not worry, someday they will learn...
Also regarding the CEOs, my experience proves you 10000%. I had the pleasure and displeasure to have met some of those CEOs of my industry. 1 in 3 were indeed great minds who deserved their position and earned them with their ability. The rest were average joes who got their position by their capital or other means of "influence". The "BeSt GeT tHe ToP pOsITiONs" arguement is a joke and expressed only by those who haven't competed or cooperated for/in those positions. Knowledge and ability are huge factors, that's true, but they aren't the only nor the most important.
Now i have to clarify that i haven't worked in game industry but i do not think that matters.Any industry with big companies and fierce competition is prettty much the same.
Hearthstone has an economy problem. But it isn't with ftp players, it takes care of them well. Quite simply, paying doesn't do as much as it should.
If I am smart and save 7000 gold, I get to open 70 packs. I'll have almost all the commons, most of the rares, a decent chunk of the epics, and a few legendaries.
If I didn't save quite so hard because I knew I'd be paying, maybe I open 50 packs from gold. And, let's say I'm a whale, so I buy the 50 pack preorder, and then another 60 paid. 160 packs gets me all the commons, most (but probably not all) the rares, maybe 15-20 epics, and like...8 legendaries. The odds of those few extra legendaries and epics being the ones I actually wanted are slim anyway. So usually, purchasing packs leaves you with a down feeling.
It's odd, but hearthstones real problem is there isn't enough value in paying. Paying $300 a year should get you almost all the cards, while paying $150 a year should get you enough for the semi hardcore player. As it is you're almost better going free to play. The value is just so low after the first 50 packs or so, because everything you open is a duplicate that is worth 1/4 or 1/8 what it was in the first few packs.
Hearthstone has an economy problem. But it isn't with ftp players, it takes care of them well. Quite simply, paying doesn't do as much as it should.
If I am smart and save 7000 gold, I get to open 70 packs. I'll have almost all the commons, most of the rares, a decent chunk of the epics, and a few legendaries.
If I didn't save quite so hard because I knew I'd be paying, maybe I open 50 packs from gold. And, let's say I'm a whale, so I buy the 50 pack preorder, and then another 60 paid. 160 packs gets me all the commons, most (but probably not all) the rares, maybe 15-20 epics, and like...8 legendaries. The odds of those few extra legendaries and epics being the ones I actually wanted are slim anyway. So usually, purchasing packs leaves you with a down feeling.
It's odd, but hearthstones real problem is there isn't enough value in paying. Paying $300 a year should get you almost all the cards, while paying $150 a year should get you enough for the semi hardcore player. As it is you're almost better going free to play. The value is just so low after the first 50 packs or so, because everything you open is a duplicate that is worth 1/4 or 1/8 what it was in the first few packs.
True, I do find saving like a f2p and buying just the preorders gets me by with most of the cool legendaries and some spare dust if I want a new/specific one but in the last few sets it's epics I need more of after my opening and like you say I am a semi hardcore player. So I am £150 quid per year all in for most of each new set.
Where then is the balanced price for say, just buying the complete set? would people do it for £100? £150? would they buy wild sets if they dusted them or never had them in the first place. Yes, yes they would, every time.
They could monetize this game way way better but the "RnG"/lootbox system is obviously too valuable to offer complete sets or anything more than 5 random cards at a time.
Hearthstone has an economy problem. But it isn't with ftp players, it takes care of them well. Quite simply, paying doesn't do as much as it should.
If I am smart and save 7000 gold, I get to open 70 packs. I'll have almost all the commons, most of the rares, a decent chunk of the epics, and a few legendaries.
If I didn't save quite so hard because I knew I'd be paying, maybe I open 50 packs from gold. And, let's say I'm a whale, so I buy the 50 pack preorder, and then another 60 paid. 160 packs gets me all the commons, most (but probably not all) the rares, maybe 15-20 epics, and like...8 legendaries. The odds of those few extra legendaries and epics being the ones I actually wanted are slim anyway. So usually, purchasing packs leaves you with a down feeling.
It's odd, but hearthstones real problem is there isn't enough value in paying. Paying $300 a year should get you almost all the cards, while paying $150 a year should get you enough for the semi hardcore player. As it is you're almost better going free to play. The value is just so low after the first 50 packs or so, because everything you open is a duplicate that is worth 1/4 or 1/8 what it was in the first few packs.
This is a pretty interesting point that I hadn't thought too much about. My guess is that making the no duplicate legendary change (way overdue) was partially towards addressing this problem of diminishing returns. I only do the pre-order plus any 50% off bundles (i.e., lunar bundle). I enjoy opening the packs and the excitement of getting your first few legendaries. That excitement fades pretty fast after release day.
Blizzard just announced a RECORD year in terms of earnings...and then 800 people were fired lol nice logic 9/11
1. That's activision blizzard, not blizzard. Things will get even more complicated if we don't make sure we're talking about the correct group.
2. Welcome to Investments. If you earn 5 billion in profits and investors were expecting 6 billion, you are a failure and your stock with drop like a rock. It's not about how much you earn or profit from, it's 100% about how much you grew compared to how much they expected you to grow.
Yes it sounds stupid but it's ***VERY*** critical to understanding why these companies do what they do.
CEO is a professional job title and people just go from being CEO of this company to CEO of that company for the later part of their careers.
Maybe do some research before you call people "fucking delusional" and then come out with your own dogmatic view of how to become a CEO
Edit: Most people in high power jobs and positions are genuine Psychopaths and used the traits gained from being one to throw everyone else under the bus on the way up the ladder all whilst wondering why no one else is doing the same things as they are.
In truth most Psychopaths don't even know they are one and the general "violent psycho" movie thing is a myth because it's not even the same personality disorder. Chances are in a family of 5 one is a Psycho or has tenancies at least.
Yea so all your middle/high management upwards are probably Psycho's and maybe even your mum, dad or sister too.
I hope everyone learned something today
Jesus f..king Christ, Donald, please, learn to read. I'm just saying it is stupid to take for granted these people ALWAYS deserve the money they earn, when we know f...king shit about them. Do you understand now?
But they didn't start their careers as a CEO, you genius. :P
Yea, and this same logic doesn't go for any other company. That's why people still watch Television, buy cell phones, Nikes, Cars, etc.
Obviously, you work up to it but once you become one you don't go back down, you just go across and end up somewhere else
Also clarified in original post now, I knew I should have done it anyway but figured people are smart enough to work that much out
Yeah, like for example, in your best friend's company. :D
Most gaming companies dont want to make big games anymore, which require tons of man hours to polish. Everyone wants to get on the games as a service and micro transaction wagon, which is feasible with way less costs for HR. Valve, EA, Ubisoft, Activision they are all lookijg for the best way to have the lowest effort for the highest return. Blizzard has not released a true full game since Diablo 3 and apperantly has no intention to do so in the near future. If you (like me) think that this is not what gaming should be about then we have only one choice: Stop spending extreme money on cheap shit. Hearthstone is a fun game and all but is does not come close to the effort Blizzard has made for past games.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
#JeSuisFieryWarAxe!
XD XD.
I mean yes that is likely I am not disputing that bit, but not necessarily.
The real problem comes when your CEO is not from your industry and has 0 clue what the consumer base wants. Like Activisons is definitely not a guy who built himself up in a gaming company, he probably ran some FTSE 100 company and they offered him fuck loads of money to come and make them fuck loads of money.
I think once you are in enough profit as a company you shouldn't need investors to give you money because you have loads already and should be investing in yourself/ your products and you shouldn't have shareholders (or ones outside the company at least) because they just cost you loads of money.
Corporations will run and own the world one day and there is fuck all we can do about it. The avarice of the few will ruin things for the many, it's already begun.
same^^
A good company is when 'thinking people' who try new ideas and creat innovations are in buissness - not when employes who only care about the money.
I'm glad we can end this discussion in good terms, SamHobbs494. :)
Me too, I see you comment on a lot of threads and as a whole agree with you.
The big issue in Activision-Blizzard, for me, is that is NOT customer related. They takes decisions and fuck-off. In a market were there was few competitors that was fine. Now no. The competition today is huge and there are a lot of companies that are totally customers related, and they are developing games based on what his buyers want. Since Blizzard will not understand that, will fail. Blizzard can not think of being God because he made Diablo and Warcraft and always fucking his buyers.
I personally think that most of the old and new Blizzard's customers like now are very angry with Blizzard. (I am not talking about only Hearthstone, but about everything, see the new Diablo mobile for example)
Do you guys have phones? That is what a company totally out of his customers could say.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5QRgpjfarY)
Activision-blizzard is getting exactly what it deserved and I have pity only for the developers out there. What the hell did Corporate think was going to happen after ruining all their most popular IPs in search of more profit?
This is the definition of being too greedy and if video games thought me one thing it's that greed rarely pays off.
It's sad to see a company such as Blizzard struggling like this but I hope this industry shake-up finally makes these companies learn that fucking their customers over isn't really a viable business practice
Do not bother with those two dude, Activision's big black PR is so far deep into their throats that they cannot think critically when it comes to these subjects. Do not worry, someday they will learn...
Also regarding the CEOs, my experience proves you 10000%. I had the pleasure and displeasure to have met some of those CEOs of my industry. 1 in 3 were indeed great minds who deserved their position and earned them with their ability. The rest were average joes who got their position by their capital or other means of "influence". The "BeSt GeT tHe ToP pOsITiONs" arguement is a joke and expressed only by those who haven't competed or cooperated for/in those positions. Knowledge and ability are huge factors, that's true, but they aren't the only nor the most important.
Now i have to clarify that i haven't worked in game industry but i do not think that matters.Any industry with big companies and fierce competition is prettty much the same.
Hearthstone has an economy problem. But it isn't with ftp players, it takes care of them well. Quite simply, paying doesn't do as much as it should.
If I am smart and save 7000 gold, I get to open 70 packs. I'll have almost all the commons, most of the rares, a decent chunk of the epics, and a few legendaries.
If I didn't save quite so hard because I knew I'd be paying, maybe I open 50 packs from gold. And, let's say I'm a whale, so I buy the 50 pack preorder, and then another 60 paid. 160 packs gets me all the commons, most (but probably not all) the rares, maybe 15-20 epics, and like...8 legendaries. The odds of those few extra legendaries and epics being the ones I actually wanted are slim anyway. So usually, purchasing packs leaves you with a down feeling.
It's odd, but hearthstones real problem is there isn't enough value in paying. Paying $300 a year should get you almost all the cards, while paying $150 a year should get you enough for the semi hardcore player. As it is you're almost better going free to play. The value is just so low after the first 50 packs or so, because everything you open is a duplicate that is worth 1/4 or 1/8 what it was in the first few packs.
True, I do find saving like a f2p and buying just the preorders gets me by with most of the cool legendaries and some spare dust if I want a new/specific one but in the last few sets it's epics I need more of after my opening and like you say I am a semi hardcore player. So I am £150 quid per year all in for most of each new set.
Where then is the balanced price for say, just buying the complete set? would people do it for £100? £150? would they buy wild sets if they dusted them or never had them in the first place. Yes, yes they would, every time.
They could monetize this game way way better but the "RnG"/lootbox system is obviously too valuable to offer complete sets or anything more than 5 random cards at a time.
From what I read on twitter:
Blizzard just announced a RECORD year in terms of earnings...and then 800 people were fired lol nice logic 9/11
This is a pretty interesting point that I hadn't thought too much about. My guess is that making the no duplicate legendary change (way overdue) was partially towards addressing this problem of diminishing returns. I only do the pre-order plus any 50% off bundles (i.e., lunar bundle). I enjoy opening the packs and the excitement of getting your first few legendaries. That excitement fades pretty fast after release day.
1. That's activision blizzard, not blizzard. Things will get even more complicated if we don't make sure we're talking about the correct group.
2. Welcome to Investments. If you earn 5 billion in profits and investors were expecting 6 billion, you are a failure and your stock with drop like a rock. It's not about how much you earn or profit from, it's 100% about how much you grew compared to how much they expected you to grow.
Yes it sounds stupid but it's ***VERY*** critical to understanding why these companies do what they do.
And yeah, it's utterly screwed up overall.
One does not simply walk into Mordor,
unless they want to be the best they can be.
This video is for anyone who wants more details about this topic: