Age of Kotick

[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.

 

[erztez]

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.

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

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.

 

[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 ***** 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.

 

[loremazd]

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.

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

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!"

 

[ucciolord1]

But can we kill him?

 

[Littaly]

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.

 

[erztez]

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 ***** 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".