Age of Kotick

[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

 

[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'.

 

[Brainst0rm]

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.

 

[chinangel]

this is why I really hate bobby kotick.

 

[ZephrC]

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.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

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.

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.

 

[Twilight_guy]

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.

 

[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!

 

[Staskala]

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

(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.

 

[Ytmh]

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.

 

[Nmil-ek]

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.

 

[LightspeedJack]

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)!

 

[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. -_-

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.

 

[loremazd]

...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.