Remember that this is the second time Riccitiello has bought Bioware and Pandemic. The first time was as a partner in Elevation Partners, the private equity firm that has owned the studios for the past two years. I don't remember seeing an exedus when Elevation bought them. A big part of the reason is that PE folks are very wary of key employees jumping ship and taking the value they just bought with them, so they give them $$ incentives to stay. The same will stay true here; employees won't be cashing out. The deal includes $155M of equity in EA to go to the acquired company, which is most likely earmarked for employee incentives.
Also, to respond to the initial post, if people were surprised by this move, they haven't been paying attention. When Riccitiello left Elevation to re-join EA, it was only a matter of time until EA bought these studios. Private equity shops don't buy companies to hold onto them for the long haul; they either cobble together critical mass, or sell out. And given Riccitiello's affiliation, did anyone see his old partners selling to anyone else?
That isn't the sucker punch. Miller says as much himself. FTA, "Indeed, because his company is a developer, Miller says he has never had contact with the ESRB; he is used to having his publisher take care of the entire ratings process."
The punch is the aggressive, lawyerly tone of the ESRB's notice, and that while the ESRB took their time to pick on content that has been on the website for many years, they expect 3D to drop everything to fix it. I don't blame him for being annoyed. Instead of getting memos from the ESRB telling them of their latest requirements, they get demands out of the blue. Sure, it's a reasonable letter to send to the general counsel of a publisher, but it shows a lack of understanding of the industry they are supposed to be part of that they don't distinguish between publishers and developers.
Sure, very competitive, smart people become executives and politicians. And yes, bullies are competitive people. So there is likely to be some overlap, but most bullies won't have other traits needed for them to become successful. Forcing others to go along with you only works on a small scale -- to be successful on a large scale, a leader has to build something bigger than him/herself, inspire that team to be creative, and empower them to make their own decisions. Those aren't typical bully traits.
Interesting idea. However, Gold Farming will still survive, because there will have to be a market with an arbitrage possibility to set the price. And if there are servers with no RMT, then there will be Gold Farming on those servers. I would also worry that despite its intent, this in-game market would actually help Gold Farmers.
This system hinges on the belief that there are sufficient players who want to sell their Gold to supply the in-game demand. I would expect that most players value their time over the monetary value of the Gold, given the clearing price of Gold. It's still a Globalized economy, driven by the lower wage-rate in less-developed economies. The Gold Farmers would use their in-game market to reduce their cash operating expenses, and then sell their excess loot in the black market. The price will just have to be low enough to drive most players out of the in-game market. Then Blizzard, et al, would be facilitating a hated element in the game, leading to unhappy customers. This business is all about keeping the users happy, and risking that is not worth the hassle or the pitance they would raise.
The original poster's system has Blizzard charging a commission on trades, so yes, they would be providing a service. However, the OP should note that by debiting/crediting the accounts of the parties involved, Blizzard would be acknowledging the value of the thing it brokered the transaction for.
I would imagine it would be fairly trivial to add a personal balance sheet to the code for each character with a retained earnings figure to balance the character's assets (including purchased skills, etc). A server crash would still negate the un-realized earnings and expenditures during the period since the last back-up, they could just write that risk of loss into the service contract. It would be like a personal injury waiver you sign to drive a go-kart.
I, too, would rather kids watch sex than violence, but I wonder whether the problem many American parents have with pornography that is not that it teaches kids to have (unprotected?) sex, but that it teaches them to objectify women. I don't have any kids, but I imagine that's a more complicated lesson to teach kids than "killing is wrong".
Most high school kids these days will have sex one way or the other, but most will not try to kill someone. I don't think violent video games will have an impact one way or another on that statement, but if we're going to encourage something, I'd like to encourage them to make love, not war. Only a small number of kids who want to have sex get pregnant, but an unacceptable percentage (any % >0) of those who try to kill someone succeed.
The change in prices in Canada, according to the article, was 3.8% year-on-year. Inflation, per the Bank of Canada, is 2.0%. That is a world-wide increase in prices? Inflation aside, the impact of transportation fuel prices on bringing food to the grocery store can easily account for that increase.
As for Mexico, how many ethanol plants are there in Mexico, a country that produces 3.5 mm bbl/day of oil and consumes 2.0 mm bbl/day of oil products (source: April IEA OMR)? Not that many. So why the impact in Mexico? It's because the US used to grow so much corn that we couldn't use that we dumped it on the Mexican market, lowering their cost of corn, and taking some of their producers out of the market. The sudden increase in ethanol production due to oil product price increases has sucked up this additional supply, and now those producers will come back into the market.
Yes, it sucks that Mexican consumers were hit with such a swing this year, but it's due more to NAFTA than anything else. So if you want to get your knickers in a twist about something (which I don't advise), blame free trade and the natural delay in the supply/demand feedback loop. But note how there weren't a bunch of articles when the price of tortillas went down after the implementation of NAFTA.
I'm not misogynist, I have family members that are women. You can make your excuses, but you're making a big deal about something as inconsequential as a difference in a subjective, possibly gender-biased measure. I'm just calling them like I seem them.
Anyone who uses ethnic or racial slurs in an online community knows that people of that race or ethnicity are out there, and knows they will be offended. That they do it anyway just means that they are punks who are hiding behind their anonymity in voicing their disrespect.
The crux of your argument seems to be that a server is like a frat. The problem is, not everyone wants to play in a frat, and there are only mediocre options (like the "ignore player" option you cite) available to those who would prefer to play in a different atmosphere. Publishers of these games will need to make more extensive options available, be they longer ignore lists or servers on which different codes of conduct are enforced, if they want to capture that segment of the market.
Substitute "piss-ant kid" for "boy", and "adult" for "girl", and you might better understand the issue. I have a thick skin and am not offended by swear words, but would still love to avoid the incessant whiny, assinine commentary on online games. It reduces my enjoyment of online games, or forces me to disable features that were intended to improve my experience.
I don't find racism funny, despite your assertion that it's a "joke". Neither do I find the misogyny enbedded in your post to be clever or entertaining in the least. It makes for an online gaming community that alienates a large portion of its potential audience. It seems to me that the publishers have a financial incentive here to increase their appeal.
The reason free speech works is that it typically comes at the price of accountability. Say some thing offensive in a crowded room, and you are personally accountable to the other people in the room. Write an anonymous article, and the publisher of the paper will be held accountable. The paper's editor, knowing this, will not publish something offensive unless he sees value worth the price he will pay from his angry readers cancelled subscriptions. Currently, if we are offended by what we hear in a game, we have limited options to hold the actual author of those statements accountable. Enough people have to quit the games (or not subscribe in the first place) to make the development of tools to increase accountability within the game worth their cost.
Complying with the order isn't an option, it's a crime. So here are options, as I see them (from my perspective as the money guy in this kind of situation):
1. Request of the Controller *in writing* that he re-draft the budget to accomodate your legitimate software needs. Point out explicitly in your written request that his suggestion that you install the same software on multiple computers violates the license, and is legally equivalent to theft. Politically, it would be advantageous to include the caveat that you are sure he was not aware of this (even though he surely is). Put him on notice that you are unable to comply because the direction is illegal. It's his job to get the cash, and yours to do IT. If you get fired, that would suck, but getting fired for not doing something illegal is great grounds for an employment suit, and you'll find plenty of lawyers who would take that case on coningency, so won't do that unless they are complete dolts (which they might be).
2. Find some other way to economize. What are these users using now? Why the sudden need to install this new software? Are they adding headcount? Upgrading the OS? Any reason I can think of requires significant additional expenditure by the company (which means many places to economize). If there is no additional cost savings to be found, someone mis-estimated when they budgeted (either you, or the Controller, which takes us back to #1 above).
3. Quit. Feel real good about yourself and have a great story to tell about why you left this job that puts you in a very positive light.
I'm as addicted to my iPod as the rest of the geek world, but I leave it at home when backpacking. Instead, I take an unlocked cellphone with a gig or so of MP3s and a radio in it (Sony Ericsson w800i). The radio is key -- local radio gives you a great taste of the local musical culture. It keeps me a little more involved in the local atmosphere, and it's one less thing to get stolen.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember that this is the second time Riccitiello has bought Bioware and Pandemic. The first time was as a partner in Elevation Partners, the private equity firm that has owned the studios for the past two years. I don't remember seeing an exedus when Elevation bought them. A big part of the reason is that PE folks are very wary of key employees jumping ship and taking the value they just bought with them, so they give them $$ incentives to stay. The same will stay true here; employees won't be cashing out. The deal includes $155M of equity in EA to go to the acquired company, which is most likely earmarked for employee incentives.
Also, to respond to the initial post, if people were surprised by this move, they haven't been paying attention. When Riccitiello left Elevation to re-join EA, it was only a matter of time until EA bought these studios. Private equity shops don't buy companies to hold onto them for the long haul; they either cobble together critical mass, or sell out. And given Riccitiello's affiliation, did anyone see his old partners selling to anyone else?
That isn't the sucker punch. Miller says as much himself. FTA, "Indeed, because his company is a developer, Miller says he has never had contact with the ESRB; he is used to having his publisher take care of the entire ratings process."
The punch is the aggressive, lawyerly tone of the ESRB's notice, and that while the ESRB took their time to pick on content that has been on the website for many years, they expect 3D to drop everything to fix it. I don't blame him for being annoyed. Instead of getting memos from the ESRB telling them of their latest requirements, they get demands out of the blue. Sure, it's a reasonable letter to send to the general counsel of a publisher, but it shows a lack of understanding of the industry they are supposed to be part of that they don't distinguish between publishers and developers.
You see the world very differently than I do.
Sure, very competitive, smart people become executives and politicians. And yes, bullies are competitive people. So there is likely to be some overlap, but most bullies won't have other traits needed for them to become successful. Forcing others to go along with you only works on a small scale -- to be successful on a large scale, a leader has to build something bigger than him/herself, inspire that team to be creative, and empower them to make their own decisions. Those aren't typical bully traits.
Interesting idea. However, Gold Farming will still survive, because there will have to be a market with an arbitrage possibility to set the price. And if there are servers with no RMT, then there will be Gold Farming on those servers. I would also worry that despite its intent, this in-game market would actually help Gold Farmers.
This system hinges on the belief that there are sufficient players who want to sell their Gold to supply the in-game demand. I would expect that most players value their time over the monetary value of the Gold, given the clearing price of Gold. It's still a Globalized economy, driven by the lower wage-rate in less-developed economies. The Gold Farmers would use their in-game market to reduce their cash operating expenses, and then sell their excess loot in the black market. The price will just have to be low enough to drive most players out of the in-game market. Then Blizzard, et al, would be facilitating a hated element in the game, leading to unhappy customers. This business is all about keeping the users happy, and risking that is not worth the hassle or the pitance they would raise.
The original poster's system has Blizzard charging a commission on trades, so yes, they would be providing a service. However, the OP should note that by debiting/crediting the accounts of the parties involved, Blizzard would be acknowledging the value of the thing it brokered the transaction for.
I would imagine it would be fairly trivial to add a personal balance sheet to the code for each character with a retained earnings figure to balance the character's assets (including purchased skills, etc). A server crash would still negate the un-realized earnings and expenditures during the period since the last back-up, they could just write that risk of loss into the service contract. It would be like a personal injury waiver you sign to drive a go-kart.
I, too, would rather kids watch sex than violence, but I wonder whether the problem many American parents have with pornography that is not that it teaches kids to have (unprotected?) sex, but that it teaches them to objectify women. I don't have any kids, but I imagine that's a more complicated lesson to teach kids than "killing is wrong".
Most high school kids these days will have sex one way or the other, but most will not try to kill someone. I don't think violent video games will have an impact one way or another on that statement, but if we're going to encourage something, I'd like to encourage them to make love, not war. Only a small number of kids who want to have sex get pregnant, but an unacceptable percentage (any % >0) of those who try to kill someone succeed.
The change in prices in Canada, according to the article, was 3.8% year-on-year. Inflation, per the Bank of Canada, is 2.0%. That is a world-wide increase in prices? Inflation aside, the impact of transportation fuel prices on bringing food to the grocery store can easily account for that increase.
As for Mexico, how many ethanol plants are there in Mexico, a country that produces 3.5 mm bbl/day of oil and consumes 2.0 mm bbl/day of oil products (source: April IEA OMR)? Not that many. So why the impact in Mexico? It's because the US used to grow so much corn that we couldn't use that we dumped it on the Mexican market, lowering their cost of corn, and taking some of their producers out of the market. The sudden increase in ethanol production due to oil product price increases has sucked up this additional supply, and now those producers will come back into the market.
Yes, it sucks that Mexican consumers were hit with such a swing this year, but it's due more to NAFTA than anything else. So if you want to get your knickers in a twist about something (which I don't advise), blame free trade and the natural delay in the supply/demand feedback loop. But note how there weren't a bunch of articles when the price of tortillas went down after the implementation of NAFTA.
I'm not misogynist, I have family members that are women. You can make your excuses, but you're making a big deal about something as inconsequential as a difference in a subjective, possibly gender-biased measure. I'm just calling them like I seem them.
Anyone who uses ethnic or racial slurs in an online community knows that people of that race or ethnicity are out there, and knows they will be offended. That they do it anyway just means that they are punks who are hiding behind their anonymity in voicing their disrespect.
The crux of your argument seems to be that a server is like a frat. The problem is, not everyone wants to play in a frat, and there are only mediocre options (like the "ignore player" option you cite) available to those who would prefer to play in a different atmosphere. Publishers of these games will need to make more extensive options available, be they longer ignore lists or servers on which different codes of conduct are enforced, if they want to capture that segment of the market.
Substitute "piss-ant kid" for "boy", and "adult" for "girl", and you might better understand the issue. I have a thick skin and am not offended by swear words, but would still love to avoid the incessant whiny, assinine commentary on online games. It reduces my enjoyment of online games, or forces me to disable features that were intended to improve my experience.
I don't find racism funny, despite your assertion that it's a "joke". Neither do I find the misogyny enbedded in your post to be clever or entertaining in the least. It makes for an online gaming community that alienates a large portion of its potential audience. It seems to me that the publishers have a financial incentive here to increase their appeal.
The reason free speech works is that it typically comes at the price of accountability. Say some thing offensive in a crowded room, and you are personally accountable to the other people in the room. Write an anonymous article, and the publisher of the paper will be held accountable. The paper's editor, knowing this, will not publish something offensive unless he sees value worth the price he will pay from his angry readers cancelled subscriptions. Currently, if we are offended by what we hear in a game, we have limited options to hold the actual author of those statements accountable. Enough people have to quit the games (or not subscribe in the first place) to make the development of tools to increase accountability within the game worth their cost.
Complying with the order isn't an option, it's a crime. So here are options, as I see them (from my perspective as the money guy in this kind of situation):
1. Request of the Controller *in writing* that he re-draft the budget to accomodate your legitimate software needs. Point out explicitly in your written request that his suggestion that you install the same software on multiple computers violates the license, and is legally equivalent to theft. Politically, it would be advantageous to include the caveat that you are sure he was not aware of this (even though he surely is). Put him on notice that you are unable to comply because the direction is illegal. It's his job to get the cash, and yours to do IT. If you get fired, that would suck, but getting fired for not doing something illegal is great grounds for an employment suit, and you'll find plenty of lawyers who would take that case on coningency, so won't do that unless they are complete dolts (which they might be).
2. Find some other way to economize. What are these users using now? Why the sudden need to install this new software? Are they adding headcount? Upgrading the OS? Any reason I can think of requires significant additional expenditure by the company (which means many places to economize). If there is no additional cost savings to be found, someone mis-estimated when they budgeted (either you, or the Controller, which takes us back to #1 above).
3. Quit. Feel real good about yourself and have a great story to tell about why you left this job that puts you in a very positive light.
I'm as addicted to my iPod as the rest of the geek world, but I leave it at home when backpacking. Instead, I take an unlocked cellphone with a gig or so of MP3s and a radio in it (Sony Ericsson w800i). The radio is key -- local radio gives you a great taste of the local musical culture. It keeps me a little more involved in the local atmosphere, and it's one less thing to get stolen.