Age of Kotick

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Halceon:
So if their CEO is basically shit and they can't get rid of him becaus of stock prices, why are they paying him so much?

Because of the amount of money he's drawing from sales.

And also I looked at his Forbes, I think that people would kill to have that much money.

teknoarcanist:
...
Seems like some question-dodging on the part of the writer. If the entire article is about the effectiveness of the CEO at helming the company, then, sorry, but the question is 'are they making money' -- or at least, 'are they making more money than they were before Kotick came along'.

His turrets-syndrome PR, his one-note business practices, all of that takes a back-seat to the cold hard finances. Without that data to back up your claim that he 'doesn't know what he's doing', you might as well be my Grandpa, ranting and raving about how Obama is 'steering this country to hell'.

And for the record, I don't know whether or not their profits have gone up or down -- I'm just saying it's definitely an area where the article's argument could potentially be strengthened.

------------

Otherwise a damned-good case for why the guy is completely rotten in the eyes of 'potential Activision customers'.

Where to start, where to start...
You see, the cold, hard, shiny cash is fine. But most companies look at least a bit further then the next quarter.
Right now, ActiBlizz doesn't. Let me give you an example of what happens when you maximize quarterly profits(spit out CoD 2451 : The Attack of DLC or w/e) instead of trying to sustain long-term growth (hire new talent, give a previously indie studio a chance, experiment...).
You get Atari(sorry, Infogrames). Remember STO? Remember that coming out in a state that couldn't even be called beta? Remember all the nasty cash grabs Atari performed to squeeze just a few more cents from its customers?
Look at Atari now. They hat a very good quarter, but they're gonna go bankrupt(again) within 24 months.
That's no way to run a company. Long term gain > short term gain.
In short, Bob DOES NOT know what he's doing. He's maximizing quarterly profits at the expense of long term viability. Thing is, he couldn't care less, by the time this business model kills ActiBlizz off, he'll be a happy CEO for a pharmaceutical corp. or McDonalds.

ZephrC:

Cousin_IT:

Therumancer:

Believe it or not, but there was a time when businesses were content to make money, and didn't have to gouge maximum profits out of every little thing that they did.

no there wasn't. The only reason you might choose not to squeeze something for additional revenue is because not squeezing it will ultimately make more.

That's both true and untrue at the same time. It has always been one of the goals of a business to make as much money as possible, but that "one of" bit is key. It used to be okay for a corporation to have multiple goals. Like, a restaurant could want to make really good food and make lots of money. A corporation could plan to pay their employees well and make lots of money.

Sadly, today's corporate attitude doesn't allow that. If your singular and all consuming goal isn't to ship every possible penny at every possible second off to Wall Street, you're doing it wrong.

The problem with Bobby Kotick and Activision is that they're proud of their transformation into a soulless money printing machine. They're in the process of learning a lesson that EA had to learn nearly a decade ago, that people don't actually like that. That maybe it's a good idea to keep your goddamned mouth shut about it, and maybe even dull the edges a bit for PR purposes on occasion.

That's actually kinda why I think people around here are practically waiting in line for a chance to slobber all over Valve's cock. Valve has managed to keep the dual goals of both making shit tons of money and making awesome video games, something which is extremely rare in a company of Valve's size.

That's the consequence of companies going public. The videogame industry is, by investment standards, still an incredibly risky way for investors to use their money. The big publishers are all highly exposed to the risk of serious losses if just one AAA game fails to sell well & sell fast. Just look at Eidos. We get our knickers in a twist every time an article quotes Kotick comes out with some cash money millionaire quote about how he wants to monetise everything. But more often than not he is addressing existing or potential investors, whose only real concern is will their investment make a good return. Kotick effectively has to say these things because, despite videogames outselling movies since 2008, the development costs compared to sales are staggeringly out of balance & this scares investors. Finding new ways to monetise his products is what Kotick is there to do.

If anything, the Kotick hate is less a symbol of a CEO being out of touch with gamers, & more games (media) at least being out of touch with the realities of corporate life. He might be terrible at PR, but is his moves to monetize games packages in new ways any different to Themis Group recently introducing premium membership to The Escapist, apart from Alexander Macris handling the PR side of it much better? Both are ways to increase revenue from an existing product after all. As I said, they guy should let PR people do the talking for him. But that doesn't mean he should be tarred, feathered, paraded through the streets then ceremoniously fired & ostracised.

Activision publish dozens of games a year. We may only see a lot of press releases surrounding a few, but is that any different from other major publishers? Would Bruutal Legend have got all the hype from EA if they hadn't been able to package it as a "f'k you Activision" move? I doubt it. But they sure are keen to put out as much press buzz as they can for Old Republic online, the $200million dollar game that may partly explain why EA's stock prices have failed to go anywhere but down since they collapsed in 2008, whereas Activion-Blizzards are comparatively stable (though lower).

& Since you mentioned them as everyone seems to do, Valve can get away with their business style because a) they are not a publicly floated company & b) they have Steam. If they had had shareholders to answer to & no secondary revenue as a digital distributor with 50-70% market share, do you really think Gabe Newell would have gotten away with the debacle that has been the Half Life episodes, which before Steam kicked off were the companies flagship products?

I doubt Kotick's outrageous comments are outrageous simply because he likes doing that. A company like Activision has multiple battallions of marketing and communication strategy people, and I find it hard to believe that they don't notice Kotick's comments, that they simply don't care or that their advice is 'overruled' by Kotick.

Two possible conclusions:

1) Activision is making more money because Kotick makes sure their games are in the spotlight all the time;
2) The marketing guys at Activision thínk they are making more money because of that.

I understand that he's failing on the PR side of things, but he isn't exactly lost any money for the company has he? I can't see the masses boycotting activision games anytime soon, so he's going to keep making money. He's a complete prick.... but its something everybody is going to have to live with. =(

I don't think it was Kotick who chose to break Starcraft II into three parts. That was entirely Blizzard itself.

*slow clapping*

Unfortunately it is not as easy as "getting rid of him", because he bought himself into Activision back in the day and has been CEO of Activision since 1991, he put a lot of his own cash into the company and was also majorly involved in the merger with Blizzard. He's not really just your "usual employee" that can be voted out by the Board of Directors (or the shareholders that vote said Board of Directors in the first place) without drastic changes and following repercussions.

And yes, you are probably right that people would bitch if he opened an old lady a door, because based on his behavioural pattern up to this point he surely wouldn't have done it out of the goodness of his own heart but you'd have to figure out his business-motivation behind it (Is she some kind of rich investor he can get onboard? Is she possibly the grandmother of some studio-head he wants to buy that could vouch for him by saying "oh I remember that young man, he was so nice" etc. xD)

Well, I've stopped buying Activision games. Anyway, so far everything I love/want comes from Sony, EA or SEGA, sometimes indie devs.

Although I never liked any COD game, I see that firing Infinity Ward devs was incredibly stupid. He basically gifted a golden-egg laying goose to EA.
And losing Tim Schafer... When you have Schafer in your pocket it's like having Peter Jackson involved in your movie or Metallica recording tracks for you. And Kotick lost this man, gifted him to EA. Now Schafer's name sells EA games.

Cousin_IT:

Therumancer:

Believe it or not, but there was a time when businesses were content to make money, and didn't have to gouge maximum profits out of every little thing that they did.

no there wasn't. The only reason you might choose not to squeeze something for additional revenue is because not squeezing it will ultimately make more.

Actually he's right... each company has a set of "Core Values" they usually hold dear, which are either based on pure profit, traditionality (piano companies and the likes), quality (of products/of support), customer care/approval, innovation and the likes...
Sure profit is always a main goal and you shouldn't make a loss but believe it or not there are companies that do not do certain things because they have some backbone even if it was the "obvious" choice to get more of said profit and it would infringe on said "Core Values".

Blizzard had said "Core Values" in their oldern times: http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/about/mission.html

Unfortunately most companies do not really get to keep said things when they get big (over a few dozen employees) or get bought out by another company with controlling interest

this is starting more and more to remind me of the year i worked in a photo store:

SHORT VERSION: we got a new boss who had worked with major projects around the world, but had no idea how to run a store. in the end ALL the talent left (photoshop experts, image enhancers) and the store earned 70% less than it did before. he got fired and now the store is owned by another investor.

LONG VERSION: i worked in a very successful photo store for one year. the first 9 months we had an awesome leader, LOTS of talents regarding photo manipulation (which is what photo stores earn MOST from in cash-per-hour) and image enhancers (fix colors and such). we had good sellers, and was the most profitable store in our franchise in the WHOLE country. all in all, an succesfull business.

after our boss got a sales job in a leading camera manufacturer, we were without a boss for 2 weeks. the store was a well oiled machinery, and went suprisingly well without a boss (except all went home early and such, hehe). the stores income went down with abour 2-4% this period.

then we got a new boss. he had the CV from heaven: leading huge projects cross country and such. he was overqualified for the job, and thats why he got it. the first weeks went fine. he had lotsa great ideas, but most of us were in the mood "the old style worked well, why change?"

after 2 weeks, he started getting irate. he didnt understand shit how anything in the store worked, all he could manage was our salaries and setting up worklists. yet he saw himself as perfect. some of our image editors tried teaching him photoshop, resulting at him screaming at the screen for not figuring out how a pen-and-tablet worked. store still had the same income.

after 2 more weeks, the boss turned kotick (new word discovered!). he was making the life misserable for everyone, making it a pain in the ass for our image editors to do their job, by dragging em out and demanding em to become salesmen. ALL our image editors called in sick, and quit the job a month after. our store could not manipulate photos anymore (or at least fast enough for it to be a profit). our income falls with additional 20%.

our boss gets the idea that we shouldnt sell cameras or photos anymore, but ipods and radios. our photo part is practically dead, only printing out photos, and me and a girl get set to photo editing (something im kinda crappy at). he hires two 15-years olds to become sellers, something they have zero experience at. further 20% income fall.

i talk to my boss about handling customers with respect, nomatter how douchey they are. he rages, threatens to kill me and such. after that he buys me a coke and says "its cool now". i quit.

2 months later: new boss, not a single of the original crew and new investors. store is back to normal.

i think i know what will happen to kotick :D

Kinichie:
I don't think it was Kotick who chose to break Starcraft II into three parts. That was entirely Blizzard itself.

Please read the following sentence carefully, and learn from it.

There...is...no...such...thing...as...."Blizzard itself".

Blizzard and Activision are the same company, hence "ActiBlizz".

The artist formerly known as Blizzard has about the same right to make decisions as my left ass cheek. Granted, it's a part of my body, and it does some important things for me. But I don't let it decide where it's gonna sit.

Haakong:
SNIP

Funny, I actually worked at a place that ended like that:P
Well, 'cept there was no new management after the inevitable crash, just bankruptcy.
Who cares tho, I got a lot of furniture and 3 LCD screens for my trouble:)

No, it's not his job to be greedy. There is a difference between making money and making excessive amounts of it.

As for coming up with new business ideas...no that's probably best done by committee.

Attracting and actually hiring talent should be down to the HR department, which in my experience of such companies are more likely looking for people who tick certain boxes rather than those who can break the mould.

With regards to his needing to understand the games industry, yeah ok to a certain extent but again that is probably something best created as a result of the contributions of everyone at the company.

Yeah, ok when it comes to PR...then again he's the CEO, a figurehead, not a member of the marketing department.

Good article. It's good to be reminded why such a person is vilified. After his "honest" press release a week or so ago, I almost felt sorry for the little f*****

Dirty-Zombie:
I understand that he's failing on the PR side of things, but he isn't exactly lost any money for the company has he? I can't see the masses boycotting activision games anytime soon, so he's going to keep making money. He's a complete prick.... but its something everybody is going to have to live with. =(

i look at it like the lumber industry. Originally they were solely focused on the end money, so they clear cut, every tree was cut down and no money was spent worrying about how to make money off the non-existent trees that were left. Eventually the lumber industry became one of the largest organizations planting trees of various species.

tldr: clear cutting will cause eventual disaster games or lumber

erztez:

teknoarcanist:
...
Seems like some question-dodging on the part of the writer. If the entire article is about the effectiveness of the CEO at helming the company, then, sorry, but the question is 'are they making money' -- or at least, 'are they making more money than they were before Kotick came along'.

His turrets-syndrome PR, his one-note business practices, all of that takes a back-seat to the cold hard finances. Without that data to back up your claim that he 'doesn't know what he's doing', you might as well be my Grandpa, ranting and raving about how Obama is 'steering this country to hell'.

And for the record, I don't know whether or not their profits have gone up or down -- I'm just saying it's definitely an area where the article's argument could potentially be strengthened.

------------

Otherwise a damned-good case for why the guy is completely rotten in the eyes of 'potential Activision customers'.

Where to start, where to start...
You see, the cold, hard, shiny cash is fine. But most companies look at least a bit further then the next quarter.
Right now, ActiBlizz doesn't. Let me give you an example of what happens when you maximize quarterly profits(spit out CoD 2451 : The Attack of DLC or w/e) instead of trying to sustain long-term growth (hire new talent, give a previously indie studio a chance, experiment...).
You get Atari(sorry, Infogrames). Remember STO? Remember that coming out in a state that couldn't even be called beta? Remember all the nasty cash grabs Atari performed to squeeze just a few more cents from its customers?
Look at Atari now. They hat a very good quarter, but they're gonna go bankrupt(again) within 24 months.
That's no way to run a company. Long term gain > short term gain.
In short, Bob DOES NOT know what he's doing. He's maximizing quarterly profits at the expense of long term viability. Thing is, he couldn't care less, by the time this business model kills ActiBlizz off, he'll be a happy CEO for a pharmaceutical corp. or McDonalds.

I agree. I'm just saying that in order to comment more effectively, it helps to have data to back up claims -- or to analyze and re-orient claims to match. You don't have to convince me that Kotick is an evil incompetent jackass; I was just pointing out where the article might be strengthened.

And as much of a games-hating d-bag as Kotick might be, I don't doubt that he has a long-term plan in his own mind, and one that he's successfully convinced the rest of the Activision leadership of, even if that plan consists of 'create and exploit new streams of revenue over the next ten years, by boring small holes into the abdominal cavities of our customers'.

Therumancer:
Hmmm,

I think you've got some of it wrong. There is a differance between capitolism, and being ridiculously greedy.

Pardon my rudeness, but I find it hard to take your post seriously when you've spelled 'difference' and 'capitalism' wrong in the very first line.

this is why I really hate bobby kotick.

Cousin_IT:
snip

Well... everything you just said is true, but I think maybe you missed the point. Just because it does work that way right now doesn't mean it's healthy for it to work that way over the long term.

I could go on a long rant about how the stock market is killing capitalism, but no one would listen and I already probably come across as crazy. No need to feed the fires.

The notion that a CEO is supposed to be greedy is a new interpretation and proves how amazingly poor Americans are with business at this point. That mentality is exactly why we had mortgage scandals, lending crises, an automotive sector meltdown, etc.

In one word: FAIL.

Shamus, I normally enjoy your insights on gaming matters, but how you could be so ass-backwards on this is just beyond me. A corporation is supposed to make money. A CEO is supposed to make them money. A corporation is not supposed to ravage its own feeding grounds and salt the earth so nothing grows again. A CEO is not supposed to bring them to that point.

More to the point, many of the failings you list are why people hate him. Not because he's making money, but because he's a stupid jerk who makes bad business decisions. Back to the above point, those decisions are fueled by greed. He's where he is and able to do what he does because greed put him there. His decisions are largely fueled by greed. We have become so obsessed with increased profits and the like that we have allowed guys like Kotick to take the wheel and set precedent for more Koticks in the future.

And even if there is a crash, the precedent set by other industries tells us the result will be lesson not learned.

This increased permissiveness of irresponsibility is ridiculous. We need less regulation on the oil companies who let the Deepwater Rig explode. They're supposed to make money. CEOs should fiddle while Rome burns. They're supposed to be that greedy. Fox News and MSNBC are fine because news is supposed to be biased and deliberately misleading the public is acceptable. Games aren't supposed to be owned. Consumers aren't supposed to have basic rights regarding purchases and content.

I suppose we could keep down this path and see where else it leads.

I'll say this:

Kotick is better than the vast, vast majority of the population could ever hope to be at his job. People really underestimate just how difficult and just how incredibly broad a skillset is needed to do this job.

I do think, however, that he's headed down the "old EA" road. EA ran all of its popular franchises into the ground, didn't have anything to replace them, and had made such a bad name for themselves that they really had to work to get people to try out their new IPs. They started losing tons of money, and they're just starting to recover from that.

Zachary Amaranth:
The notion that a CEO is supposed to be greedy is a new interpretation and proves how amazingly poor Americans are with business at this point. That mentality is exactly why we had mortgage scandals, lending crises, an automotive sector meltdown, etc.

Actually, the lending crisis came about because the government wrote laws intentionally pushing banks to give out loans more easily. CEOs had no choice in the matter, and are just an easy scapegoat because, hey they're just a bunch of greedy assholes, right?

Also, the interpretation of CEOs as being "greedy" for trying to make money came from people who think that profit is inherently evil, not from people actually running these businesses.

Excellent points. I'm wondering if someone is actually looking for a replacement though. It might be in their best interest to quickly replace the man even if it hurts there public image just to have someone who isn't a hate magnet for their company's market. I am also wondering if maybe he's some kind of absolute business genius that does amazing things behind the scenes that we don't know about and that's why they keep him. I doubt it but it might be true... somehow.

Brainst0rm:

Therumancer:
Hmmm,

I think you've got some of it wrong. There is a differance between capitolism, and being ridiculously greedy.

Pardon my rudeness, but I find it hard to take your post seriously when you've spelled 'difference' and 'capitalism' wrong in the very first line.

Don't take this wrong, but I'm guessing you must be new to the Internet (the greatest system of tubes ever devised!).

I only say this because if that got your attention, your in for an experience as your going to run into some of the most extreme mutilations of the engrish language evah conceived! Some (like in my case) coming from speed typing and writing long messages, others done intentionally as part of net speak, or whatever.

I know lots of people like to be grammer nazis, and speak passionatly in the defense of the engrish langrage but it's really a lost cause. If you can figure out what someone is saying, that's usually all you can count on.

Until later, umop apsidn!

From the perspective of a shareholder, Mr. Kotik is doing a pretty good job, Activision shares are on a constant rise.

image
(the high peak in 2008 is obviously due to the merge of Activision and Blizzard, thus neglectable)

Not to forget that Actvision has become the biggest and most influencial puplisher in video games, all under Kotik's reign.

Say about him what you want, he's a dirty, greedy bastard, sucks at PR, but he is not a bad CEO.

If Kotick seems at odds with his work, perhaps then we're looking at something more than him just being incompetent, a jerk, or whatever.

http://www.amazon.ca/Snakes-Suits-When-Psychopaths-Work/dp/0060837721

Snakes in Suits is a great book to understand how come someone terribly unfit for a corporate job can climb up the ladder.

Blame Americas lacklustre corporate rules CEOs hold all the cards they CANT replace him shareholders have almost no say once a CEO is elected, and what does kotic care if the company goes under or has it's image shamed into the dirt hes still going to take home a giant ass check.

If by "Age of Kotick" you were referring to his mental age I'd say it's about 5. Great article. Kotick is a triple threat of hatableness (Yes, that's a word...now)!

Sorry, you lost me with that tired "Starcraft II is sold in thirds at a full price a piece" argument, something which besides being patently false can't even be attributed to Kotick.

And I was looking forward to reading something truly analytical. -_-

Zachary Amaranth:

Shamus, I normally enjoy your insights on gaming matters, but how you could be so ass-backwards on this is just beyond me. A corporation is supposed to make money. A CEO is supposed to make them money. A corporation is not supposed to ravage its own feeding grounds and salt the earth so nothing grows again. A CEO is not supposed to bring them to that point.

And yet Activision-Blizzard is in no peril as consumers continue to devour their products. Salted earth indeed. /rolleyes

EDIT:. . .Yeah, I need to stop reading this thread now. It's just another ignorant and self-indulgent whinefest that provides a perfect example of group-think amongst game enthusiasts.

amaranth_dru:

erztez:

amaranth_dru:

...And one can't milk Blizzard forever... they're bound to die out some day, just like everything else.

I keep telling people that WoW is reaching the end of it's shelf life, and SC2 is already rotten.
Hell, ActiBLizz is telling people that WoW is going to start winding down in a few years.
Why does everyone think that WoW and CoD and GH and...'eh, no idea...are enough to keep a monster like ActiBlizz afloat?
It's a rule of any organism, if you don't grow, you die.

I'm a WoW fan, but even I know its reaching its terminal phase. I think they have room for one more xpac after Cataclysm. And then what? World Of Starcraft? And when was the last time they came up with something new? Diablo 3 is still going to be Diablo, Starcraft 2 is still Starcraft with better graphics and a few new updates. So what next? A reboot of Blackthorne? Another Lost Vikings? Perhaps I'm asking too much to say that the gaming industry can't live forever off of past glories. And people like Kotick are the cancer.

0

They already announced a new IP MMO.

MissAshley:
Sorry, you lost me with that tired "Starcraft II is sold in thirds at a full price a piece" argument, something which besides being patently false can't even be attributed to Kotick.

And I was looking forward to reading something truly analytical. -_-

Zachary Amaranth:

Shamus, I normally enjoy your insights on gaming matters, but how you could be so ass-backwards on this is just beyond me. A corporation is supposed to make money. A CEO is supposed to make them money. A corporation is not supposed to ravage its own feeding grounds and salt the earth so nothing grows again. A CEO is not supposed to bring them to that point.

And yet Activision-Blizzard is in no peril as consumers continue to devour their products. Salted earth indeed. /rolleyes

EDIT:. . .Yeah, I need to stop reading this thread now. It's just another ignorant and self-indulgent whinefest that provides a perfect example of group-think amongst game enthusiasts.

So, you basically tell us you don't want to read this thread? Okey-dokey.

loremazd:
0

They already announced a new IP MMO.

Yeah...new MMO =/= WoW.
WoW is a guaranteed cash cow, anything new that doesn't have Call of Duty or Guitar Hero in the title is not. Hence, I see the axe coming. Coming soon.

Also, I am really getting sick of everyone writing in their own explanations for every single thing they don't agree with.

Blizzard is capable of doing things you don't like all on their own. You all bitch and moan about pricing structures and cut games and lan issues.

Lets face it, Blizzard doesn't have little bitches in monkey suites running their company. Mike Morhime is very, very good at his job, and he's very, very good at ensuring his company does well. Blizzard has its own marketing department, and it doesn't twiddle it's thumbs waiting for big bad Kotick to come tell them what to do.

But no, no, -all- change is scary, and any dirivation of past pricing structures or expansion ideas is completely unacceptable and must be the work of some evil douchebag in some penthouse cackling madly and not what they say.

The most rediculous thing is, even without knowing -anything- about the inner working of the company, you simply inject your own cynical reality to every situation, painting the entire industry associated with one guy as blubbering morons who dont know how to make money.

erztez:

MissAshley:
Sorry, you lost me with that tired "Starcraft II is sold in thirds at a full price a piece" argument, something which besides being patently false can't even be attributed to Kotick.

And I was looking forward to reading something truly analytical. -_-

Zachary Amaranth:

Shamus, I normally enjoy your insights on gaming matters, but how you could be so ass-backwards on this is just beyond me. A corporation is supposed to make money. A CEO is supposed to make them money. A corporation is not supposed to ravage its own feeding grounds and salt the earth so nothing grows again. A CEO is not supposed to bring them to that point.

And yet Activision-Blizzard is in no peril as consumers continue to devour their products. Salted earth indeed. /rolleyes

EDIT:. . .Yeah, I need to stop reading this thread now. It's just another ignorant and self-indulgent whinefest that provides a perfect example of group-think amongst game enthusiasts.

So, you basically tell us you don't want to read this thread? Okey-dokey.

loremazd:
0

They already announced a new IP MMO.

Yeah...new MMO =/= WoW.
WoW is a guaranteed cash cow, anything new that doesn't have Call of Duty or Guitar Hero in the title is not. Hence, I see the axe coming. Coming soon.

I wasn't talking to you in any sense of the word, so don't use me to push over your cynical views. "Oh no, WoW might stop making as much money at some point of the future! I bet the company who makes it has no idea that this could possibly happen because they're all idiots!"

But can we kill him?

People always bring up the "You can't fault a company for wanting to make money, that's what a company does", and while I partially agree with that, simply faulting someone for wanting to make money is pretty narrow minded, it doesn't excuse everything.

I read (or saw, can't remember) somewhere that games are mainly thought of as products, and that it's hurting the whole creativity deal when the only reason you create something is to make money. There needs to be some kind of balance, visionaries need to be allowed to do their thing and companies need to be able to profit from them. If you think of it from one side only the result isn't gonna be pretty. Activisions yearly lineup the last couple of years hasn't been all that pretty.

loremazd:
Also, I am really getting sick of everyone writing in their own explanations for every single thing they don't agree with.

Blizzard is capable of doing things you don't like all on their own. You all bitch and moan about pricing structures and cut games and lan issues.

Lets face it, Blizzard doesn't have little bitches in monkey suites running their company. Mike Morhime is very, very good at his job, and he's very, very good at ensuring his company does well. Blizzard has its own marketing department, and it doesn't twiddle it's thumbs waiting for big bad Kotick to come tell them what to do.

But no, no, -all- change is scary, and any dirivation of past pricing structures or expansion ideas is completely unacceptable and must be the work of some evil douchebag in some penthouse cackling madly and not what they say.

The most rediculous thing is, even without knowing -anything- about the inner working of the company, you simply inject your own cynical reality to every situation, painting the entire industry associated with one guy as blubbering morons who dont know how to make money.

Please allow me to make this clear.
There is NO BLIZZARD.
There is no separate corporate entity named Blizzard.
There is Activision Blizzard.
Mike Morhaime is NOT running the company in the sense that he has a final say in anything, he's reporting to the Activison-Blizzard COO, Thomas Tippl, who, in turn, is reporting to ol' Bob.

Granted, I don't know much about the actual inner workings of ActiBlizz, but I do of other game developer/publisher ones.
And let me tell you, you don't have to be a dick to sell games. It helps, though.

Also, how can you say change is scary and in the same paragraph defend the exploitation(their word, not mine) of the same franchise, year in, year out? Make up your mind, either you like change, or you like "CoD456:Bobby Kotick knows you'll give him more money, no matter how retarded the game is".

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here