So does this news not qualify as 'seeing different'?
It might. But the whole thing read like...well, they were making interesting
assumptions and inferences throughout. That is, someone mentions that there have been discussions about microtransactions, so clearly Blizzard is under Activision's evil influence. Because, like, it's completely implausible that anyone at Blizzard would have spoken about microtransactions if they hadn't been bought. And, hey, three months after the merger SC2 was revealed to be a trilogy. Which is totally something else we can lay at Activision's feet, it's not as though Blizzard might possibly have been planning something along those lines for a while--and, incidentally, is completely absurd, what with each installment having thirty missions
and, oh, production values to put those in SC/WCIII to shame. I bet Blizzard was totally going to ship 90 missions on one disc. Or, I dunno, more than one disc. Or, hey, look, a cease and desist order! Because it's totally wrong for companies to change their minds eight years later
I could go on, but at heart? They're not credible, because they try too hard.
This is coming from a guy who thinks that Kotick is basically a bad person--see that horse**** about pessimism and fear.