“Blizzard and Activision were like oil and water.” Interview with Jason Schreier about Play Nice and the history of Blizzard

by

If you’ve ever enjoyed titles like Diablo, World of Warcraft, or even dabbled in Hearthstone, Play Nice might not offer a particularly humorous reading experience. I was fortunate enough to have a conversation with Jason Schreier, not only about his work on this report but also about Blizzard’s history, the company’s evolving reputation, the fate of its staff, and potential future directions. Join us as we delve into the intriguing backstage tale of this iconic game studio, guided by one of the most trusted voices in gaming journalism.

Hubert Sosnowski proposes an imaginative scenario: It’s the year 2001, and you find yourself as a developer or designer with lofty aspirations. Suddenly, Blizzard Entertainment extends an invitation for you to join one of their projects – would you accept?

Jason Schreier chuckles, indicating a general consensus: “Indeed, most individuals would likely affirm this. Back in the year 2001, the instant response from many would be to collaborate with Blizzard.

HS: The year is 2012, same deal, a young up-and-coming creator gets the call – what’s their move?

In all likelihood, the answer is affirmative. I suspect that many individuals would have chosen to collaborate with Blizzard Entertainment in the year 2012.

AS: Let’s jump ahead, say it’s 2024 or 2025. Do you think Blizzard is a company that one should avoid at all costs?

JS: [Laughs] I won’t be running the company in 2024 or 2025, but given the high demand for full-time jobs, many would jump at the opportunity too. Regardless of Blizzard’s challenges, it remains a powerhouse with exceptional games. Although Blizzard has its flaws, there are similar issues in other companies that haven’t received as much attention. The allure of working for Blizzard lies in the fact that whatever you create will be enjoyed by millions, unlike working on projects in other companies where they might not see the light of day. It’s a powerful and attractive prospect to creators who want their work to reach a wide audience.

HS: So it’s still profitable to join Blizzard? Still worth it?

In simpler terms,

My opinion is that Blizzard isn’t necessarily toxic, but it can greatly vary based on the team and individuals you worked with within the company. Some people have had fantastic experiences, while others haven’t. The public exposure of these issues has led to changes, and since they are no longer under the leadership of Activision, more adjustments have been made. So, I wouldn’t categorically say that Blizzard is a toxic workplace; instead, it’s evolving and addressing its problems. It’s positive that these concerns have been openly discussed.

“I was interested in tracking how people’s opinions of Blizzard have changed and pinpoint the turning point. Your book made me think of World of Warcraft, so please correct me if my association is incorrect.”

In essence, the tolerance level for issues within Blizzard’s games and work environment varies significantly between players, general audience, employees, and even over time. From an employee perspective, I can understand their concerns differently. If you were to ask if someone would buy a Blizzard game without knowing anything, the answer would have sounded quite different in 2001, 2012, and 2024. Back then, Blizzard’s games were often bought blindly due to their stellar reputation. However, that perception has changed over the years, leading us to identify a turning point from the product standpoint.

From a historical perspective, people who have read “Play Nice” would see that Blizzard’s workplace issues were much more severe in the 90s, an era when Blizzard was at its peak. The company had a fraternity-like atmosphere and exhibited boys’ club tendencies, which could be highly toxic for many people. While it may seem counterintuitive, Blizzard might have been a better place to work in 2024 than it was 25 years ago, despite the studio’s worse reputation during its heyday.

You’ve hinted at an intriguing angle. Given that Blizzard boasts three of its flagship franchises – Warcraft, Starcraft, and Diablo – I can’t help but ponder if these masterpieces could have emerged without the tumultuous period Blizzard experienced in the 90s and early 2000s. Could it be that the conflict and creative tussles are so ingrained in Blizzard’s identity that they were destined to create games in this manner?

In response to your query, let me clarify that it’s indeed an insightful question. During the 90s, Blizzard was significantly smaller than it is now, employing only hundreds rather than thousands of individuals. One of their most significant accomplishments could very well be StarCraft, a game that has had a profound impact on the industry. Its development took a considerable toll on the team, spanning over two to three years. This period was marked by long hours and even overnight stays at the office for many team members.

This team we’re discussing is relatively compact, comprising mostly men, with a handful of women. In fact, about 99% of the team members were male. They collaborated closely, playing the game daily to identify issues. All of them were avid gamers, bringing a unique perspective to their work.

While some might refer to the intense work period as “OMG, that crunch was horrible, it consumed their lives,” it’s important to note that this intensity did have its repercussions. Some individuals reported memory loss due to the pressure, which was indeed challenging. However, one could also argue that this high-energy atmosphere fostered creativity and contributed significantly to the game’s development. The experiences were both harrowing and inspiring.

In creating something exceptional, it’s often unclear if the hardships encountered along the way are essential for achieving the final masterpiece. Many game developers have grappled with this question throughout their careers, wondering “How much must I give up to make this amazing?” or “Is greatness attainable without sacrifice?” This discussion centers around the concept of ‘crunch’, where one might logically argue that certain aspects are unnecessary, but other factors come into play. For instance, camaraderie, which can be found in a fraternity-like environment. This could involve late-night activities and socializing after work, fostering high spirits and strong bonds among team members. While this atmosphere had its advantages, such as increased creativity and satisfaction, it also presented challenges. A strong bond with colleagues often leads to superior results, but it can also blur the line between work and leisure, potentially leading to burnout or other issues.

The tool or atmosphere at Blizzard functioned effectively for certain individuals, but presented unique challenges for women due to its distinct feel. Some female employees had to adapt to it by enduring crude humor related to flatulence and the testosterone-filled ambiance. This was a complex situation that required acceptance.

In other situations, Blizzard might have been more woman-friendly, yet it could have lost the unique blend of elements that made them who they were. Consequently, their games would likely be different. It’s difficult to isolate the positive and negative aspects of this environment, as all Blizzard games emerged from it. I don’t believe there is a straightforward answer to what was good or bad about it.

HS: Was it worth it in the end?

JS: For who?

HS: Let’s consider three perspectives. Devs, gaming community, and the product itself.

From a personal perspective as a fan, if you’ve been part of Blizzard, particularly like Mike Morhaime at the helm, you’ve likely amassed wealth thanks to your tenure with the company. If you’re an artist who didn’t stick around for the creation of “World of Warcraft,” you might not have seen the same financial rewards and may question if it was worth it. Financially speaking, there’s a wide range of outcomes – but creatively, the experience could have been fulfilling or possibly left someone feeling mistreated. The hours invested in the work might not have equaled the compensation in the end, and the time spent took away from other aspects of life. Alternatively, one could say, “I was young and it was alright then, but now I’m older, and I don’t want to go through that again.” It’s a complex situation, and the impact varies depending on who you are.

As a gamer, I can say it was an incredible journey, filled with countless hours spent playing extraordinary games that left us in awe. Back then, we had only the vaguest understanding of how these masterpieces were crafted behind the scenes, as there wasn’t much communication about game development.

StarCraft, WarCraft, World of WarCraft, and Diablo by Blizzard Entertainment have left an indelible mark on the gaming community. Each game has had a ripple effect, influencing every developer in some way or another. It’s impossible to quantify the impact these games have had on gaming as a whole.

However, it’s important to acknowledge that the workers behind these games didn’t always receive fair compensation. This lack of recognition led many developers to leave Blizzard and establish their own companies. For them, it wasn’t worth it after the release of StarCraft, which ultimately led to the formation of a company called Fugitive – a brief chapter in the history of gaming that closed its doors not long after.

Given the tumultuous history of Blizzard Entertainment, could they have steered clear of some of their larger issues, such as abandoning projects like the original Diablo 3 and Titan, or the scandal surrounding inappropriate conduct toward women?

In light of Blizzard’s rocky past, might they have been able to sidestep some significant challenges, like canceling projects such as Diablo 3 and Titan, or the controversies surrounding mistreatment of women?

During the development process, making choices about games like Titan and Diablo 3, as well as other creative decisions, presented unique challenges that were difficult to circumvent. The reason being, when you’re working on a project, it’s challenging to foresee all outcomes, particularly after World of Warcraft (WoW). At this time, the company faced unprecedented pressure and growth, which they had not experienced before. They had to learn from tough experiences, especially with Titan. The game was significantly impacted by being compared to WoW. It needed to be Blizzard’s next major MMO and surpass WoW, which created an immense amount of pressure. When combined with the absence of financial pressure due to the income generated by WoW, this situation proved disastrous. Some aspects of that project could have been avoided, but it’s uncertain to what extent.

Looking back at the Californian lawsuit that sparked conversations about Blizzard’s treatment of women, I believe the situation was preventable as there were whispers and suspicions about certain issues for quite some time. Regrettably, individuals who displayed unacceptable behavior managed to remain within the company for extended periods. In my opinion, Blizzard’s Human Resources department, Mike Morhaime, and the company at large had an opportunity – and a responsibility – to address these problems more effectively.

As a dedicated gamer, I can’t help but ponder the current state of affairs at Blizzard Entertainment. After diving deep into your insightful book, I find myself questioning the extent to which Activision Blizzard’s leadership, specifically Bobby Kotick and other related issues, have contributed to Blizzard’s recent turmoil. But equally important, I wonder if there are elements that are solely the result of Blizzard’s internal actions?

In this discussion, we’re touching on several subjects: the mistreatment of employees, toxic bro culture, and gender discrimination – none of which can be directly linked to Bobby Kotick. These issues were prevalent at Blizzard before Activision’s acquisition. Many factors, including conflicts between Blizzard and Activision, contributed to Blizzard’s current standing and reputation. Notably, these disputes resulted in the departure of key Blizzard leaders, designers, artists, and programmers. It’s challenging to pinpoint specific reasons for such departures and their impact on the company. Such effects are often intangible and difficult to quantify.

To sum it up, several individuals departed from their roles to establish new businesses, such as Second Dinner and Marvel Snap!, which may not have materialized without the influence of Activision. Similarly, Dreamhaven was founded by former Blizzard employees, including Mike Morhaime, who are preparing to launch their debut game, Sunderfolk. This dynamic would not have been possible if it weren’t for hostile takeovers, which had a profound effect on Blizzard, particularly in terms of culture shift and increased focus on monetization and quicker releases. This change was partly driven by Activision, with key figures like Blizzard CFO Armin Zerza, who joined in 2015 and fostered a culture that didn’t align well with Blizzard’s values over the past two decades.

A: It seems you’ve pointed out the factor of influence, but also highlighted the disorderly nature of Blizzard. Could it be that introducing some semblance of structure might have been necessary under such circumstances?

As a gamer, I can’t help but shake my head when I think about Titan. Seven long years in development, and it seemed like Blizzard was still trying to figure out what the game really was. How did that happen? Well, if I were Bobby (a reference to Bobby Kotick, Activision Blizzard’s CEO), I’d say they needed a bit more discipline. Even some of the die-hard Blizzard folks would agree – they could have used a tad more rigor and better production methods.

To put it another way, there appeared to be two starkly different approaches presented: one emphasizing developer-led creativity with no time constraints, while the other prioritized annual releases and predictability, similar to Activision’s approach with “Call of Duty.” Instead of finding a balance or learning from Blizzard, Activision seemed to insist on their own method. This inflexibility led to a lack of compromise, which ultimately caused the corporate conflict. It is important to note that some suggestions from Activision, such as those proposed by Bobby Kotick and Armin Zerza, were dismissed because they originated from Activision. The values and cultures of these companies were so disparate that it was clear their paths would not align smoothly.

While perusing “Play Nice,” there were moments when it seemed as though Kotick was striving for an alliance with Blizzard, yet ultimately, money held the decisive power.

Hey, a small group of you will brainstorm something fresh. You have a few weeks to come up with your proposal.” This team, led by Jeff Caplan and a couple of others, developed a concept that eventually turned into Overwatch. They presented it to Morhaime, then to Activision.

A group of executives from the second company visited Irvine, expressing confusion since they’ve created games like “Call of Duty” and questioned Blizzard’s ability to excel in their FPS genre. Bobby remained silent for the remainder of the meeting but admired the artwork, declaring it outstanding. Upon further discussion, the rest of the Activision team shifted their perspective and agreed that this project was feasible. This situation illustrates Bobby’s knack for recognizing potential, as he saw the game’s exceptional characters and art as prime candidates for toys and merchandise, which could generate enormous profits.

As a gamer, let me recount my perspective on the situation: Following our meeting, Kotick kept phoning Blizzard’s leaders, questioning why they weren’t focusing more on World of Warcraft (WoW) expansions instead of dedicating resources elsewhere. In his opinion, Blizzard needed to launch a new WoW expansion annually. This demand felt unreasonable to them, and I would echo those feelings about the team from Irvine. It seems like we’re on different wavelengths when it comes to values, expectations, and the very essence of gaming.

You see, Bobby tends to hire individuals who hail from the Consumer Packaged Goods (CPG) industry, such as Nestle. He admires these people because they know how to adhere to deadlines and schedules, be consistent, and remain disciplined. Games, in his mind, aren’t artistic expressions but rather commodities to be packaged and sold – a stark contrast to Blizzard’s approach.

This fundamental disconnect between our creative visions was never bridgeable.

AS: Now that Kotick’s tenure seems to be ending, we find ourselves in the Microsoft and Phil Spencer’s period. Is Blizzard currently going through a recovery phase, or is this simply a strategic move by the corporation to appease media and shareholders?

It’s still uncertain about Blizzard’s future direction because they have many ongoing projects and healing processes. The new leader, Johanna Faries, has only been in position for a short while. Internally, they are addressing cultural issues that have recently surfaced. Additionally, Microsoft is experiencing its own growing pains, so it’s hard to predict what the Xbox will look like in the near future.

User: I noticed some improvements in the way things are being published, and it seems like the second expansion for Diablo 4 has been delayed until 2026 for a more refined finish. Could this indicate that Blizzard is adopting a “when it’s ready” mentality again?

Blizzard rarely releases anything that feels rushed or underdeveloped. While Overwatch 2 might not have felt like a true sequel, that’s a separate discussion. It wasn’t unfinished. I can’t recall any of their games that were prematurely released, such as Star Wars: Outlaws.

A1: How do you feel about Philip Spencer now that Microsoft has taken over? In my opinion, he seems to have a stronger understanding of the company’s culture, and given that he is a gamer himself, unlike Kotick, I believe his influence will be significant.

The situation with the new case involves Microsoft’s Xbox division, and Phil Spencer isn’t the ultimate decision-maker there. He takes orders from higher-ups at Microsoft. Last year, significant changes like closing studios were made due to pressure from above Phil, so it’s uncertain if he can single-handedly resolve things. However, people find him likable, and he appears to be giving Blizzard more independence. But since this is only the beginning for Blizzard (a year feels like a week there), we’ll have to wait and see what happens. [Laughs]

RS: Given your entire research on the Blizzard company, what are your thoughts about their future direction, particularly regarding game development and workplace culture?

It’s still uncertain for many individuals, but the debate over remote work has long been a hot topic at Blizzard. Over the past couple of years, the company has encouraged its employees to return to their offices, which was met with controversy. Notably, there were significant layoffs at Xbox and Blizzard, as well as discussions about bonuses and other workplace details. At this point in time, it’s premature to provide any clear updates, as it’s been less than a year since the start of this new phase.

Have the changes already begun? I’m curious as to whether these experiences will ultimately prove beneficial for the broader gaming community, as well as for the folks at Blizzard.

In simpler terms, as I mentioned previously, transparency is beneficial. Sharing both good and bad experiences helps immensely.

AL: Is it possible that the United Video Game Workers (UWG) and the Game Workers Alliance (GWA) will significantly alter the working conditions within the gaming industry? Can they exert enough influence to challenge powerhouses such as Blizzard Entertainment?

As an ardent supporter, I must admit that I’m still cautiously optimistic about the recent union announcement. From my perspective, it seems more symbolic than transformative at this stage, with little immediate impact on workplaces. They’ll exchange vows, post on social media, and demonstrate their collective strength, but they won’t have the authority to make significant changes – not yet, anyway.

The real power comes when a union is formally recognized within a company by the national labor board. It’s at this point that you can negotiate contracts with your employer, securing tangible benefits and advantages. The world we see in headlines is quite distinct from this initial phase. Progress has indeed been slow here in the U.S., but only time will tell if things pick up speed.

Assistant: In your view, are there any other methods apart from unions that could potentially assist ordinary, everyday game developers who face the issues we’ve discussed (and those you detailed in your book “Play Nice”)?

Unions may have their limitations and require specific procedures, but they do provide a means for addressing workplace issues and removing problematic individuals when a company is willing to act. Organizational changes, internal actions, and public pressure are all effective tools, as demonstrated by companies like Blizzard, Ubisoft, and Riot who have taken action due to public scrutiny. This can be an influential weapon, especially when amplified through social media. However, it’s important to note that this platform can also lead to unfounded accusations from irresponsible users. It’s a complex issue, but it offers a powerful avenue for speaking out against poor working conditions.

AL: In our conversation, I’ve noticed we’ve touched on Blizzard. In the course of my investigation, were there any findings that affected me more profoundly than others?

Reflecting on tales from the 90s was somewhat jarring since I, too, spent my youth immersed in Blizzard games such as Warcraft, Starcraft, and Diablo during that era. Learning that these beloved games came about due to sacrifices made by numerous individuals is a bit disquieting. Additionally, hearing stories of people working for extended periods under their desks, putting in countless hours, can feel exciting initially but becomes grueling when done for months, even years. Such conditions are saddening to learn were the basis for some of these games.

HS: So you were a Blizzard fan or at least a player who enjoyed their games?

Among the games I’ve invested the greatest amount of time in are WarCraft 2, StarCraft, and Diablo 2. I’ve played every game produced by Blizzard Entertainment, but StarCraft and Diablo 2 were released during my teenage years, and I’ve clocked hundreds of hours on both of them.

HS: Did your research change your reception of your favourite games?

Playing the games produced by Blizzard didn’t alter my perspective on the games themselves; instead, it provided a more in-depth comprehension of Blizzard’s corporate culture, work environment, and the efforts required to create those games. I found this insight quite intriguing and useful. No, it didn’t have a significant impact like making me swear off playing StarCraft or similar games.

HS: Okay, thank you for the interview, and it was a pleasure!

JS: Thank you as well.

Read More

2025-04-11 11:34