Age of Kotick

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

loremazd:

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!"

Oh, WoW is going to stop making as much money at some point in the future. 3-4 years, to be a bit more precise. Now, I wouldn't mind that, all MMOs have a shelf life, and WoW is no different.
And no, I don't think that ActiBlizz is exclusively employing idiots, it's just that those they do employ are a lot more visible than it's good for the company.
It's just that ActiBlizz seems to be having intellectual problems with supporting new IPs. I wouldn't be suprised(based on their past actions, not my personal "gut" feelings), if ActiBlizz forces the artist formerly known as Blizzard to just make WoW2:This time with MORE MTs.

ucciolord1:
But can we kill him?

Well, to quote a reasonably famous guy.

"Yes we can."

But honestly, would YOU like him to rise up again, this time as a zombie who literally wants your brains?

erztez:

ucciolord1:
But can we kill him?

Well, to quote a reasonably famous guy.

"Yes we can."

But honestly, would YOU like him to rise up again, this time as a zombie who literally wants your brains?

That's what chainsaws are for...

Shamus Young:
Experienced Points: Age of Kotick

"If he wasn't making money they would fire him, therefore he's good at his job."

Read Full Article

I have nothing negative to say about this article, though I do have something to add.

Thoughts like this, the "if we're making money, the boss if good" is what got every country in the Western World knee deep in recession and bank bailouts. Food for thought for Actvision one would think...

t3hmaniac:

That's what chainsaws are for...

You, sir, win the internet.
Here it is.
image

Generic_Dave:

Shamus Young:
Experienced Points: Age of Kotick

"If he wasn't making money they would fire him, therefore he's good at his job."

Read Full Article

I have nothing negative to say about this article, though I do have something to add.

Thoughts like this, the "if we're making money, the boss if good" is what got every country in the Western World knee deep in recession and bank bailouts. Food for thought for Actvision one would think...

Amen, brother.
Though putting the words "thought" and "Activision" into the same sentence causes an imbalance in the Force.

erztez:

The Imp:

erztez:

And that's why we need to stop buying Activision crap. I did, you can't imagine they freedom of bitching about SC2 being cut into three parts when you didn't buy it, and so you're immune to return fire from fanboys:)

Also, I'm GLAD I skipped MW2, watched a mate play and BOY does that thing suck.
And you couldn't PAY me to play Guitar Hero, I still think of a guitar as a piece of wood/plastic with metal strings that make sounds while you pluck them.

Aaaaand I think I just ran out of everything ActiBlizz puts out these days, or am I missing something?

Oh, btw, I cancelled my WoW account a week before the merger came through:P

Ok, thats scary. I did the exact same things. I did not buy a Call of Duty since the first one, i did not buy a Guitar Hero or anything else Activison published in the last 5 years and i even cancelled my WoW sub. a week before Blizzard was bought. And yes i even avoided SC2 for the same reason.

The only thing we need is approx. 15 million clones of us to make a change.

I'm working on the clones, trust me. Unfortunately, all the best cloning experts were snatched up by ActiBlizz to work on CoD:MW27.
Also, got you beat, didn't even buy the first CoD, found a game box with the CD-key still on it when I moved in:P

Well if you want to add me to that you can I stuck to the damn internet petition to boycott MW2.

OT: I agree with a lot about what is being said in the article but since the video game industry is part of a creative one there needs to be more than just greed involved. Eventually the big series will crubmle when people get bored of them but that will take too long. If you really don't agree with Kotick and his business creed just don't buy his games and his little empire will crumble and all will be left is WoW until that crumbles or if Blizzard ever split.

double post, apologies.

erztez:

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".

I like good games, I buy good games. That's it, and i'm getting tired of being told I can't like them because they're popular. I don't play CoD, i've played guitar hero, and I have loved and still love Blizzard games. They've taken fun new directions in their franchises and look to to be continuing to do so.

Your summary is this: "Hey Mike, looks like you have this finished game, lets chop it up into three parts and sell it." rather than "Hey Bobby, we've decided that we'd like to take a lot of development time into polishing the three different scenarios distinct and polished. We've talked a lot with our marketing team, and we have an expansion strategy that should make this profitable."

At this point I think #1 is less likely than 2, even If I don't dismisses it. As a consumer I got my money's worth and that is completely the bottom line to me. I've made up my mind that I wont let rage over poorly drawn conclusions color my idea of what is and is not a product worthy of my money.

Bobby Kotick makes some bad decisions, but not buying a good product as "the principle of the thing" is very silly in my eyes. Buying a well made blizzard game does nothing but encourage more money being invested in their products.

Blizzard is a company owned by activision blizzard. It makes products, and makes money. Mike Morhime is about as untouchable, as is most of the dev team, as Kotick in the sense that their branch of Activision-Blizzard has made the bulk of the companies profits since the merger, and stockholders know this, and stockholders are Bobbys boss. So the inner working are a bit more unique.

erztez:

Generic_Dave:

Shamus Young:
Experienced Points: Age of Kotick

"If he wasn't making money they would fire him, therefore he's good at his job."

Read Full Article

I have nothing negative to say about this article, though I do have something to add.

Thoughts like this, the "if we're making money, the boss if good" is what got every country in the Western World knee deep in recession and bank bailouts. Food for thought for Actvision one would think...

Amen, brother.
Though putting the words "thought" and "Activision" into the same sentence causes an imbalance in the Force.

The Force is lacking with many these days...imbalances appear to affect few...

I kow why he is a jerk...because he is a prick.

There is NO BLIZZARD.
There is no separate corporate entity named Blizzard.
There is Activision Blizzard.

Actually, Blizzard has always been owned by Vivendi Games, which is the company that made the merger with Activision, another publisher, and renamed themselves Activision-Blizzard for popularity purposes, with Vivendi owning a slight bit more of the company stock.

So, to be fair, Blizzard is an entity, like IW is an entity, that answers to its publisher like every other studio ever has done. (For the most part)

Great article. A rational analysis of why Kotick sucks is refreshing.

Random bit of info: Activision didn't "buy" Blizzard, Viacom, Blizzard's owners, bought Activision and merged the two together.

loremazd:

I like good games, I buy good games. That's it, and i'm getting tired of being told I can't like them because they're popular. I don't play CoD, i've played guitar hero, and I have loved and still love Blizzard games. They've taken fun new directions in their franchises and look to to be continuing to do so.

I, too, like good games, and buy them. But buying crap like CoD only encourages people like Kotick in their crusade against innovation. I too, have loved Blizzard games, back when there was a Blizzard to love. I still own Diablo 1+2, SC+BW, and CEs of WoW, BC and WotLK. Thing is, what you're saying sounds a LOT like the usual PR crap we get when they mean "we don't want the risk of developing a new IP, and so our last original IP was Starcraft in 1998".

Your summary is this: "Hey Mike, looks like you have this finished game, lets chop it up into three parts and sell it." rather than "Hey Bobby, we've decided that we'd like to take a lot of development time into polishing the three different scenarios distinct and polished. We've talked a lot with our marketing team, and we have an expansion strategy that should make this profitable."

No, my summary is this: "Hey Mike, looks like you are doing well with that SC2 project,but...I see a lot of potential in social networking integration." "Bobby, are you insane? Players don't want to be FORCED to use their real names and link everything they do to publicly available sites like Facebook!" "Well, I'm the boss here, and I say we FORCE THEM TO."

At this point I think #1 is less likely than 2, even If I don't dismisses it. As a consumer I got my money's worth and that is completely the bottom line to me. I've made up my mind that I wont let rage over poorly drawn conclusions color my idea of what is and is not a product worthy of my money.

I don't, but that's beside the point.
As a consumer, I also got my money's worth. Of course, an RTS with 1 campaign, no matter how long, horrible balancing issues in MP, no LAN, buggy voice com and terrible support is worth exactly nothing, so that's how much I paid for my copy.

Bobby Kotick makes some bad decisions, but not buying a good product as "the principle of the thing" is very silly in my eyes. Buying a well made blizzard game does nothing but encourage more money being invested in their products.

Bobby Kotick makes some bad decisions. PERIOD. ActiBlizz occasionally releases a not-so-horrible game not because of him and his ilk, but despite them.
Do I consider not playing a few of those price worth paying for getting rid of Bobby and company eventually? Yes. Yes, I do.
Buying anything from ActiBlizz does nothing but validate Bobby in his crusade against innovation in games, no matter how well it's made.

Blizzard is a company owned by activision blizzard. It makes products, and makes money. Mike Morhime is about as untouchable, as is most of the dev team, as Kotick in the sense that their branch of Activision-Blizzard has made the bulk of the companies profits since the merger, and stockholders know this, and stockholders are Bobbys boss. So the inner working are a bit more unique.

No...Mike is most definitely not untouchable. Unlike Bobby, he didn't buy his way in to the company, and as such, is pretty easy to fire if Kotick or Tippl ever feel like it.
Stockholders DON'T CARE about which part of the company is making them money, the only guy they get to talk to it ol' Bob, and you can make sure he takes all the credit(I would, and so would anyone who ever worked in big business).

Funny thing is, no one's stopping you from buying ActiBlizz products. Just don't be a hypocrite about WHY you're buying them. You're not doing it to support the company, you're doing it to play games you like. There's nothing wrong with that, just don't pretend otherwise.

tryx3:
And getting angry about removing lan? come on, it's not that big of a deal, and i'm sure it'll be back, along with a plethora of old bnet 1.0 features soon.

When you live in Australia without a local server, and have to put up with lag when playing a game with someone IN THE SAME ROOM, it is a big deal.

Delusibeta:
Random bit of info: Activision didn't "buy" Blizzard, Viacom, Blizzard's owners, bought Activision and merged the two together.

Random bit of correct info. Activision merged with Vivendi, not with Blizzard, the Activision Blizzard trademark is just some nice work of legal fiction.

captain underpants:

tryx3:
And getting angry about removing lan? come on, it's not that big of a deal, and i'm sure it'll be back, along with a plethora of old bnet 1.0 features soon.

When you live in Australia without a local server, and have to put up with lag when playing a game with someone IN THE SAME ROOM, it is a big deal.

Amen brother, it's annoying as hell is what it is.
Also, the fact that they didn't put in the old spawn install option is pissing me off a bit, but I didn't really expect that they'd be smart enough to put THAT in.

erztez:

loremazd:

I like good games, I buy good games. That's it, and i'm getting tired of being told I can't like them because they're popular. I don't play CoD, i've played guitar hero, and I have loved and still love Blizzard games. They've taken fun new directions in their franchises and look to to be continuing to do so.

I, too, like good games, and buy them. But buying crap like CoD only encourages people like Kotick in their crusade against innovation. I too, have loved Blizzard games, back when there was a Blizzard to love. I still own Diablo 1+2, SC+BW, and CEs of WoW, BC and WotLK. Thing is, what you're saying sounds a LOT like the usual PR crap we get when they mean "we don't want the risk of developing a new IP, and so our last original IP was Starcraft in 1998".

Your summary is this: "Hey Mike, looks like you have this finished game, lets chop it up into three parts and sell it." rather than "Hey Bobby, we've decided that we'd like to take a lot of development time into polishing the three different scenarios distinct and polished. We've talked a lot with our marketing team, and we have an expansion strategy that should make this profitable."

No, my summary is this: "Hey Mike, looks like you are doing well with that SC2 project,but...I see a lot of potential in social networking integration." "Bobby, are you insane? Players don't want to be FORCED to use their real names and link everything they do to publicly available sites like Facebook!" "Well, I'm the boss here, and I say we FORCE THEM TO."

At this point I think #1 is less likely than 2, even If I don't dismisses it. As a consumer I got my money's worth and that is completely the bottom line to me. I've made up my mind that I wont let rage over poorly drawn conclusions color my idea of what is and is not a product worthy of my money.

I don't, but that's beside the point.
As a consumer, I also got my money's worth. Of course, an RTS with 1 campaign, no matter how long, horrible balancing issues in MP, no LAN, buggy voice com and terrible support is worth exactly nothing, so that's how much I paid for my copy.

Bobby Kotick makes some bad decisions, but not buying a good product as "the principle of the thing" is very silly in my eyes. Buying a well made blizzard game does nothing but encourage more money being invested in their products.

Bobby Kotick makes some bad decisions. PERIOD. ActiBlizz occasionally releases a not-so-horrible game not because of him and his ilk, but despite them.
Do I consider not playing a few of those price worth paying for getting rid of Bobby and company eventually? Yes. Yes, I do.
Buying anything from ActiBlizz does nothing but validate Bobby in his crusade against innovation in games, no matter how well it's made.

Blizzard is a company owned by activision blizzard. It makes products, and makes money. Mike Morhime is about as untouchable, as is most of the dev team, as Kotick in the sense that their branch of Activision-Blizzard has made the bulk of the companies profits since the merger, and stockholders know this, and stockholders are Bobbys boss. So the inner working are a bit more unique.

No...Mike is most definitely not untouchable. Unlike Bobby, he didn't buy his way in to the company, and as such, is pretty easy to fire if Kotick or Tippl ever feel like it.
Stockholders DON'T CARE about which part of the company is making them money, the only guy they get to talk to it ol' Bob, and you can make sure he takes all the credit(I would, and so would anyone who ever worked in big business).

Funny thing is, no one's stopping you from buying ActiBlizz products. Just don't be a hypocrite about WHY you're buying them. You're not doing it to support the company, you're doing it to play games you like. There's nothing wrong with that, just don't pretend otherwise.

I like Blizzard, I enjoy the games they make, and I support them by buying their games. Stop putting me into your fantasy. Also, stockholder meetings are public, and Activision blizzard quarterly reports are both recorded for public record, available for download, and not only has Mike been a speaker in every single one, Bobby Kotick has never spoken in one.

It -has- been an age since I bought a straight up activision game because there hasn't been one i've been interested in.

loremazd:

I like Blizzard, I enjoy the games they make, and I support them by buying their games. Stop putting me into your fantasy. Also, stockholder meetings are public, and Activision blizzard quarterly reports are both recorded for public record, available for download, and not only has Mike been a speaker in every single one, Bobby Kotick has never spoken in one.

It -has- been an age since I bought a straight up activision game because there hasn't been one i've been interested in.

You know, I too used to like Blizzard games...until shit such as this.

http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/3171

When I pay 60 bucks for a game, I expect to own said game.
And so Blizzard joins Activision firmly on the side of the dicks.

omicron1:
Problem is, the situation with the games industry is a different market than for any "consumable" product you can name. Take, for example, detergent. You have a few name brands - four or five, maybe more, I don't really know. You have a bunch of outlying brands, with store or minor names. They aren't as well known, or as popular. Thing is, they're all making detergent, and if one brand tries something outrageous, it's not hard to switch to another. This keeps the producers in line.

It's funny that you would say that cause Activisions Chief Financial Officer compared "Call of Duty" to detergent and toiletry from the great company he previously worked for (Procter & Gamble): http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/29010/Activision_COO_Tippl_Franchise_Fatigue_Is_An_Excuse.php

When Tippl joined Activision in 2005, he brought with him several years of executive experience with highly-successful consumer goods company Procter & Gamble, which is home for products ranging from toilet paper to potato chips to laundry detergent. He still draws from that mass market experience.

"When people come up and tell me, 'how can you possibly make another Call of Duty,' I always tell them that I used to work for a company that every year had to figure out how to make a white shirt whiter," Tippl said. "And [Procter & Gamble] have been doing that for 35 years with a product like Tide."

He continued, "You're telling me with all the opportunities we have, and the technologies and the content ... and all the different stories, the characters that we can develop, that we can't innovate on a franchise for 10 years? Give me a break. Then we're just not doing our job."

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.

You mean before the industrial revolution? When big business didn't exist? Or are you comparing Activision to John Rockefeller or J.P. Morgan.

Because that's stupid. Hilariously stupid.

Supp:

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.

You mean before the industrial revolution? When big business didn't exist? Or are you comparing Activision to John Rockefeller or J.P. Morgan.

Because that's stupid. Hilariously stupid.

Actually, just because you're big business, doesn't mean you HAVE TO be an evil dick.
See: Google, Valve, list goes on.

Granted, both of them CAN be a bit dickish at times, but they don't base their entire corporate philosophy on it.
THAT'S the difference.

Supp:

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.

You mean before the industrial revolution? When big business didn't exist? Or are you comparing Activision to John Rockefeller or J.P. Morgan.

Because that's stupid. Hilariously stupid.

Not really, while things were never as Idyllic as an old sitcoms back in the 1950s and 1960s attitudes were a bit differant. Companies took better care of their people, and while there was definate pursuit of profit, you also didn't have upper management looking to gouge their employees to maximize their profits, or drain every conceivable dime out of the consumer. There was more of a focus on things like building higher quality products that were designed to last and so on.

Down here there are a lot of old facroties and such that wound up closing down, and people from my grandparents generation can be quite vocal on a lot of the differances and actually prove some of them, despite the glow of "never was" around some of it.

Things really changed during the 1980s which a lot of people refer to as "the era of greed" for a while. That was when big business and the corperations, and the cutthroat way of doing things really took off. To a lot of people around today, the corperation is a well known factor, and also a stock villain in drama. 30 years ago though that wasn't the case, that's why a lot of the first "cyberpunk" stuff was so visionary (to many people) as it sort of showed what was going on in a way people hadn't thought of at the time.

It's also noteworthy that around this time we were also dealing with the entire "Japanacorp" threat which was basically a threat to American cutthroat businessmen from racially based companies that managed to be involved in a lot of the same ruthless behavior, while at the same time taking better care of their employees "old school" and gaining a disproportionate amount of loyalty that we were having trouble dealing with. Of course the guys at the top of the Japanacorp pyramids got greedy too and that all wound up collapsing as well.

While it seems quaint now, movies like "Wall Street" were a big deal, because a film coming out and saying some of the things it did about what was going on, especially in the famous "Greed is good" speech which has been quoted in a lot of places because of the statement it made (while at the same time parodying corperate culture).

See, I don't think people realize how much the world has changed over a few decades. The world my grandparents lived in, and the one my parents lived in, are radically differant from the one I've been living in. This goes not just in terms of technology, but simply in the way businesses is done.

Today your probably used to the idea of filling out job applications online, or through consoles set up near customer service desks for employers. A very impersonal process where a machine sorts people out based on what they put down before a person even considers their application. Something like this is anathema to my parents (my father wound up in a wierd workers comp issue where while collecting comp for the long term he wound up having to put in job applications in the time before he could return to work) who were shocked. My grandparents think things like that are absolutly ridiculous. In today's world you might not ever even see the man whose name is on your paychecks, never mind shake his hand, or get to look him in the eye. There are whole levels installed in the major employers right now to depersonalize things and insulate the bosses from the employees and middle management specifically so they can be impersonal about things.

-

All of that aside, if you want to engage in dialogue, keep the insulting sarcasm out of it. Over the last couple of days I've started to get fairly annoyed.

I see nothing wrong with someone choosing not to buy a game for one reason or another, but I do find the "holier than thou" attitude that gets kicked around when someone doesn't buy a game because they disagree with the way the business is run. If you disagree with the way the business is run, then by all means, choose not to buy the game, but then don't have a go at those who do buy it, because, in their eyes, the transaction is "fair". I bought Starcraft 2 and I enjoyed it, I felt it was worth the 34 I paid for it (ie. it gave me a good number of hours of enjoyment per ), yes my money has gone to a corporate empire and it is unfortunate that their business practices are the way they are, but that wouldn't stop me buying something that I feel I will enjoy. It's not like buying clothes from a manufacturer that uses sweat shops which actually harms people. I like some Activision products, if they continue releasing products that I like at a price point I feel is reasonable and without restrictions that limit MY enjoyment of the game (such as Assassin's Creed 2's always online system, I only have mobile broadband so the amount I could play would be severely limited) then I will buy them and I'm not an idiot for doing so, I just have a different view of what is and isn't "fair".

Edit: I still think Bobby Kotick is an utterly despicable human being, but it just won't stop me buying his company's products.

erztez:

Supp:

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.

You mean before the industrial revolution? When big business didn't exist? Or are you comparing Activision to John Rockefeller or J.P. Morgan.

Because that's stupid. Hilariously stupid.

Actually, just because you're big business, doesn't mean you HAVE TO be an evil dick.
See: Google, Valve, list goes on.

Granted, both of them CAN be a bit dickish at times, but they don't base their entire corporate philosophy on it.
THAT'S the difference.

You're being a little far-reaching here, just letting you know before the next tangent happens.

Bob Kotick's ineptitude at what he does is the reason I'm no longer an Activision customer.

Every success that Activision/Blizzard has it is despite Kotick's management, certainly not because of it. It would be great if Activison's board recognised this and shitcanned the guy. Like you say Young, the dude is far from the exceptional CEO that a company like Activision needs.

The man has no clue how to be a CEO of a games company, Hell I highly doubt he could manage a McDonalds properly. How the Hell does this guy get the reins to one of the biggest companies in the industry? I'm sure that Kotick doesn't like games and I'm pretty sure he despises the customer base that ensure he get's millions in undeserved bonuses ever year. He won't bring down the industry or anything, the fact that Activision/Blizzard is doing well despite his incredibly poor management is testament to the fact that the guy's pretty insignificant in the big scheme of things - at least to everyone who doesn't work for him.

But still - it doesn't take away from the urge to don a steel gauntles and punch him in his big stupid squishy dopey-grinned face.

I say flush Activision and EA down the world's largest gold covered toilet and have Bethesda & Valve take monopoly over the game industry. Kotick makes me mad. Then again, the only franchise I 'liked' (for MW only) that he single-handedly murdered is Call of Duty, and that is still meh. I just get furious at this bag of useless chair warmer.

Yep, Kotick is a moron and he should die in agony. Shamus should be Activision's CEO!

If the board cannot fire Mr Kotick, perhaps they should give him a crash course in reality and give him a permanent transfer to Janitorial Staff.

If it works out Mr Kotick learns humility, tact and an understanding of gamers and marketing for them, if not: He will rage-quit and it won't look bad for the board seeing how they didn't fire him.

Mr Kotick can then get replaced with the desk-lamp - who at least won't make so much of a hash of the job.

amaranth_dru:
Eventually people will tire of CoD XLI and look for something else.

This won't happen. Brand recognition keeps Sonic and Spyro and Crash alive a whole decade after their games started to be pure shit.

Even if Activision wanted to, the couldn't get rid of this guy. It's the board's job to employ a CEO who makes money. If the board removed a CEO who was making money they risk a lawsuit from the investors whose stocks will drop in price. Therefor this guy has a nice cushy job as long as WoW keeps making money and he can manage to even scrounge up a few pennies worth of profit.

erztez:

ucciolord1:
But can we kill him?

Well, to quote a reasonably famous guy.

"Yes we can."

But honestly, would YOU like him to rise up again, this time as a zombie who literally wants your brains?

Then let's kill him with fire

ucciolord1:

erztez:

ucciolord1:
But can we kill him?

Well, to quote a reasonably famous guy.

"Yes we can."

But honestly, would YOU like him to rise up again, this time as a zombie who literally wants your brains?

Then let's kill him with fire

Chainswas on fire perhaps? There is always room for compromise.

Shamus Young:
Experienced Points: Age of Kotick

Sure, everyone knows Bobby Kotick is a jerk, but do you know why he's a jerk?

Read Full Article

Imagine if you hired someone to make your grocery store more profitable and they came up with ideas like making people rent their shopping carts, charging an entry fee for each section of the store, and charging for shopping bags. Would you conclude that you had just hired a business genius?

...

I hate to spoil your precious sheltered world view, but... They really do some of that stuff. Charging for shopping bags has been a big thing recently. And I think those shopping carts that you put the quarter into kinda fit under the 'rent-a-cart' concept.

Maybe they just don't have that where you live, but it was rather jarring to see you talk about that stuff as though it was a far-fetched concept.

 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