Age of Kotick

[Sylocat]

A lot of people give Kotick a hard time for being "greedy." By greedy I assume they mean he wants his company to make more money. This is not something we should be angry about. As the chief executive officer of a muiltibillion-dollar company, it's his job to be greedy. That's why they hired him. Being angry about a CEO being greedy is like getting mad at a heavy metal band for playing electric guitars and being loud. Do you think Valve software puts games on deep discount because they love us? They do it because they can make more money when they occasionally go after the cheapskates and bargain hounds. And that's fine.

The difference being, Valve does not have open contempt for video games. Valve likes video games and likes making them; Kotick hates games, hates his customers and hates his employees (as evidenced by his nearly obsessive search for ways to screw them all over). Valve may not do everything out of the goodness of their hearts, but it's hard to deny that they actually care about putting out a good product and treating their employees with some basic respect. Kotick knows less about video games than Roger Ebert, with the difference that Ebert is not actively trying to destroy the medium.

 

[teknoarcanist]

I hate Kotick as much as the next guy, and agree with 95% of this article, but I have to point out:


You might argue that, "If he wasn't making money they would fire him, therefore he's good at his job." But in business things aren't nearly that simple. Sure, the company is making money, but I think it could be making a lot more if the CEO knew what he was doing. You can't look at alternate histories and see that the company would make more or less if it was doing different things. If all you want is for Activision-Blizzard to make money - any money - then they could fire Kotick and hire a desk lamp, because Blizzard was an unstoppable cash-generating dynamo before Kotick ever sat down in the CEO chair. The question isn't, "Are they making money?" but "Would they be making more money with someone else's ideas and leadership?"


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'.

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

They hired Dan Amrich as a public relations manager.

http://www.giantbomb.com/dan-amrich/72-83285/

Reading his blog [http://oneofswords.com/] really calms me down when I start hating Activision.

I just read his blog and it is awesome... but also damn you for directing me there ¬_¬

I watched the Black Ops customization video and now I badly want it...

 

[veloper]

Hey, he gets away with all that shit.

That in itself is genius.

 

[TerribleAssassin]

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.

 

[erztez]

...
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.

 

[Cousin_IT]

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?

 

[PlasticTree]

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.

 

[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. =(

 

[Kinichie]

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

 

[Lord_Gremlin]

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.

 

[erztez]

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.

 

[erztez]

SNIP

Funny, I actually worked at a place that ended like that
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

 

[Alandoril]

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.

 

[jebussaves88]

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*****

 

[luckshot]

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