Pot-Stirring Time

[CelticHound]

I've stated before that from a "bean counter" perspective, 1.10 makes no sense.

And I've stated before that there are other perspectives that might make sense.

Let's do a quick daydream fantasy. The Fab Four left Blizzard recently, and I believe that the resale value of the company dropped a bit. In fact, in this interview, Bill Roper mentions "a loss of $100-$150 million in valuation to their games unit (based on what analysts have said)".

I suppose a bean counter wouldn't notice something minor like that.

Time to go out on a limb: I'm going to assume that the Blizzard dev teams are pretty much made up of people - many of whom are gamers - who like to do a good job. No, more than that. They get a personal payoff from getting way cool software out the door. (You don't do a death march without identifying yourself with it.) And after years of tinkering, they have a personal stake in getting what they were shooting for with 1.10.

Even if 1.10 didn't bring in another dime of revenue - and I'll contest that - it could be worth it, if it just kept another half dozen people from leaving. Turnover is a nasty hidden expense. Or if people don't leave, they may become apathetic, and what does that do for your future profits?

If I were to take all the people from Blizzard who had helped make those great games, and you got everything else that was left - trademarks, codebase, etc. - which of us would have a better chance of producing a great (and profitable) game in the future?

I think 1.10 makes sense in several ways and that Blizzard could have been perfectly rational in deciding to do it. That doesn't mean that Vivendi saw the same thing with their "bean counter" perspective.

But what's a hundred mil between friends?

-- CH

p.s. Can you tell I've been reading Jim McCarthy and Tom deMarco, lately?