Frank Pearce is a co-founder of PC giant Blizzard. Not terribly long ago, the company merged with Activision for a cool $18.9 billion, and just now he has told the gaming community how he feels about it:
“I think from a corporate family perspective it’s cool, right? The leadership of Activision has a lot of experience in the industry,” he told VG247.
“You know, there’s definitely lots of opportunities for us to learn from them and them to learn from us. They also recognise the value of what we’ve achieved and how we’ve achieved it, and they don’t want to impose anything on us, so it’s really up to us to figure if or how we want to leverage their experience, and up to them to determine if or how they want to leverage our experience.”
When first announced, no team shake-ups were promised, and this looks to be true, as he added StarCraft II, for example, is unaffected by the deal:
“The StarCraft II team operates pretty independently and autonomously, and nothing related to the Activision merger really affected that,” he said. “The type of folks at Blizzard that are affected by the merger are people working in finance, human resources and stuff like that. Development teams aren’t affected, really.”
A merger with no negative effects? I don't entirely trust it, but I'll give Pearce the benefit of the doubt here. Either way, I'm kind of staunch when it comes to this stuff, and I like Blizzard as the big company on its own making great things and being apart of the community its built. With a merger, I can't help but feel a little put off. Does this matter to anyone but me? I suppose on one level anyway it's irrelevant so long as the games themselves are unaffected, or better for it.
Oh, and no, there's still no date on StarCraft II, of course.