Age of Kotick
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
Actually, just because you're big business, doesn't mean you HAVE TO be an evil dick.Supp said:
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.
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.Supp said:
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.
Edit: I still think Bobby Kotick is an utterly despicable human being, but it just won't stop me buying his company's products.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This won't happen. Brand recognition keeps Sonic and Spyro and Crash alive a whole decade after their games started to be pure shit.amaranth_dru said:
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.
Shamus Young said:
...
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.
This is one excellent article.
The fact that I now consider not buying products, just because they are being published by Activision, shows the sort of effect their treatment of customers has.
This isn't about pricing and ridiculous public declarations, but service. If I can't trust a company to publish a quality product, or at least support it later if the initial launch was less-than-stellar(TM), then I'd rather save my money.
Bobby Kotick could've been the biggest bastard in the universe, as much as I care, if he made sure us, the customers, were getting a bang for our buck. Instead, he's looking for the cheapest, dumbest ways to exploit a medium that he doesn't even understand (like the article mentioned).
Sure, Activision may be making short-term money by capitalizing on the reputation of established franchises (AKA sequels), but at the same time they are ruining the reputation of aforementioned franchises, and of their entire company, for the future.
A sound business plan? Maybe, if you're trying to go out of business.
The fact that I now consider not buying products, just because they are being published by Activision, shows the sort of effect their treatment of customers has.
This isn't about pricing and ridiculous public declarations, but service. If I can't trust a company to publish a quality product, or at least support it later if the initial launch was less-than-stellar(TM), then I'd rather save my money.
Bobby Kotick could've been the biggest bastard in the universe, as much as I care, if he made sure us, the customers, were getting a bang for our buck. Instead, he's looking for the cheapest, dumbest ways to exploit a medium that he doesn't even understand (like the article mentioned).
Sure, Activision may be making short-term money by capitalizing on the reputation of established franchises (AKA sequels), but at the same time they are ruining the reputation of aforementioned franchises, and of their entire company, for the future.
A sound business plan? Maybe, if you're trying to go out of business.
I don't blame Activision's downfall on Kotick at all. Kotick has been there since 1991, his influence is nothing recent and Blizzard has always been run correctly. I think that the blame lies with the chain of command above Kotick. He reports to shareholders, and the controlling 52% shareholder is Vivendi. Kotick works because Vivendi allows him to. Vivendi doesn't know the media business because they didn't enter it until they bought Seagram in 2000.
Vivendi is run by some high-leverage, squeeze every last drop of profits, private-equity guys. Look at the deal they did with Universal Studios, it nearly sank their company. After selling Universal in 2004, Vivendi looked for more acquisitions. So in 2005 they bought a French TV station and in 2007 they bought Activision to form Activsion Blizzard. From my experience in finance, guys like this who buy and sell companies frequently don't care about developing intellectual property. They care about "monetizing assets" and increasing revenues. Look at private-equity funds - they talk about lay-offs to reduce redundancy and monetizing assets and exploiting new markets and all of the things that Kotick has been talking about. Kotick is saying what his bosses (at Vivendi) want to hear so he can keep his job.
edit:
I just thought of another great example. Blizzard has been under Vivendi since 1998. How many creative games has Blizzard made since 1998? They have made Warcraft III (a sequel), WoW (expanding an existing IP to a new market), WoW expansions (squeezing blood from a turnip), Starcraft 2 (sequel) and Diablo III (sequel). Pre-vivendi their new IPs were Warcraft (1994), Diablo (1997) and Starcraft (1998). Seems like the point in history where Vivendi gets influence over a company has a big impact.
edit #2:
Vivendi also acquired Sierra as part of the 1998 deal. After the acquisition Sierra had mass layoffs and cost cutting. Sierra went on to not produce anything special (after being a front-runner in the early 1990s) and eventually was dissolved.
Vivendi is run by some high-leverage, squeeze every last drop of profits, private-equity guys. Look at the deal they did with Universal Studios, it nearly sank their company. After selling Universal in 2004, Vivendi looked for more acquisitions. So in 2005 they bought a French TV station and in 2007 they bought Activision to form Activsion Blizzard. From my experience in finance, guys like this who buy and sell companies frequently don't care about developing intellectual property. They care about "monetizing assets" and increasing revenues. Look at private-equity funds - they talk about lay-offs to reduce redundancy and monetizing assets and exploiting new markets and all of the things that Kotick has been talking about. Kotick is saying what his bosses (at Vivendi) want to hear so he can keep his job.
edit:
I just thought of another great example. Blizzard has been under Vivendi since 1998. How many creative games has Blizzard made since 1998? They have made Warcraft III (a sequel), WoW (expanding an existing IP to a new market), WoW expansions (squeezing blood from a turnip), Starcraft 2 (sequel) and Diablo III (sequel). Pre-vivendi their new IPs were Warcraft (1994), Diablo (1997) and Starcraft (1998). Seems like the point in history where Vivendi gets influence over a company has a big impact.
edit #2:
Vivendi also acquired Sierra as part of the 1998 deal. After the acquisition Sierra had mass layoffs and cost cutting. Sierra went on to not produce anything special (after being a front-runner in the early 1990s) and eventually was dissolved.
Well, sir, I shall indeed take your post the wrong way. I do not believe the amount of time I have been prowling the interwebs is of any relevance to us, nor do I believe 'everybody else is doing it' to be a valid defense for your errors.Therumancer said:
First, yes, I am a grammar Nazi - but only as far as it is helpful. I pointed out your error, hoping you would correct it and perhaps allow another intelligent mind to engage you in discussion, instead of turning away within two sentences since, if the author cannot be bothered to spell correctly, how then could he be bothered to form a cohesive and logical argument?
So that you might not dismiss my plea out-of-hand: I've been using one forum or another for more than six years. I know precisely what it is like, and what the standards are. This fact excuses nothing. I hold to my values, and shall always endeavor to help others when I might.