Age of Kotick
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Kotick epitomizes what is wrong with the coporate structure and CEOs that are not doing their job properly: There is no accountability.
All companies want to make money, but Kotick makes this inherent goal of business into an effrontery to all potential consumers of his company. He is not simply greedy, but he has the position and means to advertise his avarice.
Openly confirming that only games that can be exploited franchises will be used pretty much pegs his motives for the company to in turn exploit the consumer until people finally cease their support. Sadly, this is pretty much a pipe-dream.
His ineptitude with public relations culminates into a wholly awful representative for Kim Jong Il, let alone a corporation. That pompous man-child with the plastic guitar? Yeah, he's the paragon of the trolling, belligerent, and bilious twats that pollute online games (like Call of Duty in fact...).
All companies want to make money, but Kotick makes this inherent goal of business into an effrontery to all potential consumers of his company. He is not simply greedy, but he has the position and means to advertise his avarice.
Openly confirming that only games that can be exploited franchises will be used pretty much pegs his motives for the company to in turn exploit the consumer until people finally cease their support. Sadly, this is pretty much a pipe-dream.
His ineptitude with public relations culminates into a wholly awful representative for Kim Jong Il, let alone a corporation. That pompous man-child with the plastic guitar? Yeah, he's the paragon of the trolling, belligerent, and bilious twats that pollute online games (like Call of Duty in fact...).
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.erztez said:
It's more complicated than that. To crib from Hesiod [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_(mythology)#Characteristics_in_Greek_mythology]:Atmos Duality said:
It's good to be a bit greedy, it gives one incentive to work hard. It's rapacious greed that's the problem, and that's the sin that Kotick is guilty of. In addition to several others. I could make an argument for sloth and pride without even trying, but that's another story.Hesiod said:
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.
With games, it's different. The games industry isn't catering to one consumer base - it's catering to dozens of different groups that like different things. A lot of the time these interests cross over. But each product is sold to a market category - say, the people who like military shooters.
Thing is, games are a lot more differentiated within their market groups than comestibles. Where the difference between soaps may not even be noticable, the difference between an AAA- and a B-list game, in terms of polish and support; and crucially for many people in terms of the multiplayer pool, is huge.
The games industry is a collection of monopolies. There tends to be just one person sitting on top of a given genre, a given market, with everybody else crowded around at the bottom trying to whack him off. This is ESPECIALLY true of the mega-sellers: Call of Duty, Halo, and World of Warcraft each dominate their respective field. And it's a lot easier to knock off the leader of a singleplayer market than that of a multiplayer one - take the MMO field over the past 6 years as an example.
Sometimes, as with the competition between Guitar Hero and Rock Band, a real market develops. And, as with proper markets in other industries, the competition has kept Activision more honest than otherwise. Customers stopped buying the dozens of Guitar Hero clones that they've shoved out the door recently. I count fifteen core games in the Guitar Hero series, thirteen of them made in the same period that Harmonix made just six. The customers have a choice here. And they're choosing, and Activision is hurting. They're going to change their business model in this area, or they're going to lose.
To summarize (with added spice):
Call of Duty is an example of what happens when a series gains a genre or market monopoly: A field day of profiteering.
World of Warcraft is becoming similar. Activision are masters of profiteering, and they will do so wherever they have influence.
Guitar Hero/Rock Band are an example of an open market killing a profiteering attitude.
Now, I expect that Call of Duty will soon be dethroned. Medal of Honor is a serious contender, and depending on which way the reviews swing, it could establish itself in the same position Harmonix' series holds. Similarly, the prior Infinity Ward presidents could knock Activision's cash cow off its perch - all it takes is a worthy alternative product within the same genre/market to get the rats to leave the ship.
And when Activision's cash cows are down... there follows Activision, and its scummy CEO with it.
With games, it's different. The games industry isn't catering to one consumer base - it's catering to dozens of different groups that like different things. A lot of the time these interests cross over. But each product is sold to a market category - say, the people who like military shooters.
Thing is, games are a lot more differentiated within their market groups than comestibles. Where the difference between soaps may not even be noticable, the difference between an AAA- and a B-list game, in terms of polish and support; and crucially for many people in terms of the multiplayer pool, is huge.
The games industry is a collection of monopolies. There tends to be just one person sitting on top of a given genre, a given market, with everybody else crowded around at the bottom trying to whack him off. This is ESPECIALLY true of the mega-sellers: Call of Duty, Halo, and World of Warcraft each dominate their respective field. And it's a lot easier to knock off the leader of a singleplayer market than that of a multiplayer one - take the MMO field over the past 6 years as an example.
Sometimes, as with the competition between Guitar Hero and Rock Band, a real market develops. And, as with proper markets in other industries, the competition has kept Activision more honest than otherwise. Customers stopped buying the dozens of Guitar Hero clones that they've shoved out the door recently. I count fifteen core games in the Guitar Hero series, thirteen of them made in the same period that Harmonix made just six. The customers have a choice here. And they're choosing, and Activision is hurting. They're going to change their business model in this area, or they're going to lose.
To summarize (with added spice):
Call of Duty is an example of what happens when a series gains a genre or market monopoly: A field day of profiteering.
World of Warcraft is becoming similar. Activision are masters of profiteering, and they will do so wherever they have influence.
Guitar Hero/Rock Band are an example of an open market killing a profiteering attitude.
Now, I expect that Call of Duty will soon be dethroned. Medal of Honor is a serious contender, and depending on which way the reviews swing, it could establish itself in the same position Harmonix' series holds. Similarly, the prior Infinity Ward presidents could knock Activision's cash cow off its perch - all it takes is a worthy alternative product within the same genre/market to get the rats to leave the ship.
And when Activision's cash cows are down... there follows Activision, and its scummy CEO with it.
By far the biggest problem with Koltic, I think, is the way he treats everyone in the industry, whether it be competition, business partners, employees, or even customers. I could pull up a dozen quotes for each of them, neverminding the major things like the Infinity Ward fiasco and the flame war going on between him and Tim Schafer. Now I wouldn't expect anyone to just lie down and take it when someone publically calls you out (Though Schafer says he meant it to be off-record), but Kolticks response, well...says a lot about the man.
"Schafer was taking too long and Brutal Legend looked sucky anyways."
Oh boy, where to start? Alright, first off, if a CEO doesn't like where a project is going and decides to cancel it, then alright. But when Brutal Legend got picked up by EA, Activision sued Double Fine. Now come on, don't tell me Koltick didn't have anything to do with that, he had to have some kind of input in that being CEO. And the act itself is just...someone else put it best. It's like if you divorced your spouse and then sued them when they found someone else. What the hell did you think an independent studio was going to do? You may have been willing to publish it, but it was still THEIR game. If you decide you don't want it, they have every right to take it to someone else.
Second off, Koltick is entitled to his opinion on Brutal Legend, but it still strikes me as odd that he would call the game sucky when it clearly inspired Guitar Hero: Warriors of Rock, a game published by his own company.
Third, is it just me or does Koltick not respond well to criticism? I know I just said a minute ago that I don't expect anyone to lie down and let someone dump on you, but you don't have to do it publically. Or you could at least present your response in a more professional way.
This man just...gah! It's not even that Activision is a bad company, they have published several games that I like. But this man is the worst game company CEO since Bernie Stolar from Sega in the late 90's. (For a good description of THAT asshole, take a look at the sixth paragraph of this TV tropes page. [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SegaSaturn])
"Schafer was taking too long and Brutal Legend looked sucky anyways."
Oh boy, where to start? Alright, first off, if a CEO doesn't like where a project is going and decides to cancel it, then alright. But when Brutal Legend got picked up by EA, Activision sued Double Fine. Now come on, don't tell me Koltick didn't have anything to do with that, he had to have some kind of input in that being CEO. And the act itself is just...someone else put it best. It's like if you divorced your spouse and then sued them when they found someone else. What the hell did you think an independent studio was going to do? You may have been willing to publish it, but it was still THEIR game. If you decide you don't want it, they have every right to take it to someone else.
Second off, Koltick is entitled to his opinion on Brutal Legend, but it still strikes me as odd that he would call the game sucky when it clearly inspired Guitar Hero: Warriors of Rock, a game published by his own company.
Third, is it just me or does Koltick not respond well to criticism? I know I just said a minute ago that I don't expect anyone to lie down and let someone dump on you, but you don't have to do it publically. Or you could at least present your response in a more professional way.
This man just...gah! It's not even that Activision is a bad company, they have published several games that I like. But this man is the worst game company CEO since Bernie Stolar from Sega in the late 90's. (For a good description of THAT asshole, take a look at the sixth paragraph of this TV tropes page. [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SegaSaturn])
I know, I know...without self-interest, we really wouldn't have much of a will, would we?Formica Archonis said:
Besides, I was being mostly facetious with the greed statement.
I think that they should fire him. His public relations already make the board look bad, and I'm sure that removing the cause of hate would bring some gamers back, because there probable are some people who don't buy from Activision because of the way he's running it
I could understand holding on to someone like him if he's a smaller fry and you use him as a stunt to bring media attention in, but not as the face of the company. I'm about to watch Human Centipede and I'd rather see that in charge of Activision than Mr. Kotick
I speak for not only myself for many gamers I'm sure when we say "WoW fees are fine, but charge me for multiplayer (especially if you're already paying for Xbox live) and I'm done with you"
I could understand holding on to someone like him if he's a smaller fry and you use him as a stunt to bring media attention in, but not as the face of the company. I'm about to watch Human Centipede and I'd rather see that in charge of Activision than Mr. Kotick
I speak for not only myself for many gamers I'm sure when we say "WoW fees are fine, but charge me for multiplayer (especially if you're already paying for Xbox live) and I'm done with you"
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.
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'.
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'.
I just read his blog and it is awesome... but also damn you for directing me there ¬_¬Onyx Oblivion said:
I watched the Black Ops customization video and now I badly want it...
Because of the amount of money he's drawing from sales.Halceon said:
And also I looked at his Forbes, I think that people would kill to have that much money.
Where to start, where to start...teknoarcanist said:
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.
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.ZephrC said:
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?
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.
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.
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. =(
