On Activision's comtempt for gamers: Will gamers take a stand?

eventually, but it won't do anything effective, really. 

The object of any CEO of any company is to maximise profit. It's no surprise that he wants to make more money - it's his job.
 
As for whether gamers will make a stand or not - they will stop buying Activision games if/when they become too expensive for the content. At the moment it seems like the $60 price point for games, and the price of DLC and hardware & other extra costs seems to be satisfying us. Personally I try to avoid buying games at full price, but it seems plenty of people are happy to pay the full price point, and I can't see that changing any time soon.

I make no promises of boycott, but it will absolutely make me think twice about buying an Activision game.  I will also not think twice about buying a used copy for any Activision game. 

I don't understand how he can not care about making the consumer happy while only caring about profits.  Wouldn't a happy consumer equate to a higher profit margin?  Personally, if I am happy about a game I will be much more inclined to purchase a sequel.  For example: I've played Forza Motorsport games since the original came out on the Xbox.  Forza is a quality product so I know that spending 70 bucks will be worth it because I know that Turn 10 cares about their game.  That's not something I can say about the 9.99x10^25 Guitar Hero games that have come out recently.  They churn them out so fast that there's no way that they can actually put care into them and get them out on time.

the guy is crazy if he really want to raise the price for games. he is starting to just wants to make more money.  i would hate to pay more for games and i think other people will also. especially for the people that are paying about $80 a game or going to be. 
 
once that happens i am going to start renting games instead of buying them. $60 is pretty expensive for a game already. games are just going to become more expensive. 
 
i don't think that people are going to boycott the games. they seem to be happy with buying a game then DLC comes out and then a year later the next game comes out. i kind of hate that. i think that people will start boycotting things once the games start coming out like every week or something like that. i'm kind of mad about the no dedicated servers for the PC version. i'm not even going to be buying it for the PC.

It's not that he doesn't care about consumer happiness. It's that he assumes it. The numbers are most important for any large corporation. In those companies, it's always assumed the experience they deliver is appropriate for the business model. And the business model is assumed to be appropriate for the target consumer. And the target consumer is assumed to be enjoying the product.
 
While I'm not a fan of the tone, I can't disagree with his message. This isn't some bohemian colony of altruistic monks spreading joy to the children. To paraphrase a compadre: bills are not paid with the collective love of geeks.  He is making it clear that fiscal responsibility and planning are more important than allowing the creatives free reign to work on something "until it's done" while concurrently suffering from endless iteration, feature creep and eventual burnout. We know what happens when games are allowed to go through that. 
 
Gamers are not going to not buy a game because of what some spreadsheet analyst says about the company. How many companies are there that move product on sheer strength of their personality? Exactly. Good games sell. Bad games get shredded. His message is that "good game" means a lot more than whether the end user is having fun with it.
 
And he's right.

I hate to generalize but after playing games online since 1996 with Diablo I have made a few observations that seem to be statistically true. Most gamers are either one of two major categories that are easily exploitable.  They are either young, or irresponsible.  Because of this many will not be able to see the big picture: that their purchases support a company, and that said company may not respect them as a paying customer.  To them, the companies behind each game are nothing more than a name...  
 
 I don't think that boycotts can really do a whole lot to most game companies.  I mean look at the backlash for Spore, a major title.  A lot of angry people claimed to boycott the game but sales for Spore were still performing well.  Now look at what is happening with DLC.  Game developers are removing SDKs to eliminate any competition from free content from mod designers in lieu of having total control over additional content to their game.  That is fine and well, it is their game at the end of the day, but the reasoning behind it is horrible.  Having the competition of the mods works in favor of the customers as it keeps the companies honest by having to release quality content instead of being able to get away with releasing any ol' piece of crap.  DLC control obviously is the better choice for profit-hungry companies ( all of them ).
 
Also, I read an article about how Bobby's comment in that press conference was simply to put on a show for investors.  And if you believe that article, well, I am looking for someone to go back in time with meme...

You guys want to get revenge on Activision for charging you $60 for a chance to pay them in $8 increments? Buy the game used; that way, they get no profit. Which of the two evils would you choose: Activision apparently being evil (hey, I'm not a PC gamer, OK?), or GameStop completely being evil? :P

 I've come to the conclusion that Activision is trying to make games into what are essentially Michael Bay movies.  They're about as deep as a kiddy-pool but are flashy so the mainstream audience can go "Ooh shiny!" and spend exorbitant amounts of money on them.  They will be heavily advertised with lots of crap you can buy that ties in with it.  The audience (in this case, 12 year olds) will then spread around that the game is super-ultra-amazing (Whether it is or not) then eventually people will catch on that they're not that great.  It's like when Transformers came out.  All the reviews I read said it was trash but all my friends claimed it was the greatest movie ever.  I tried to watch it but got bored halfway through.  Yeah, there were explosions and stuff, but the movie felt pointless.  

"  I've come to the conclusion that Activision is trying to make games into what are essentially Michael Bay movies.  They're about as deep as a kiddy-pool but are flashy so the mainstream audience can go "Ooh shiny!" and spend exorbitant amounts of money on them.  They will be heavily advertised with lots of crap you can buy that ties in with it.  The audience (in this case, 12 year olds) will then spread around that the game is super-ultra-amazing (Whether it is or not) then eventually people will catch on that they're not that great.  It's like when Transformers came out.  All the reviews I read said it was trash but all my friends claimed it was the greatest movie ever.  I tried to watch it but got bored halfway through.  Yeah, there were explosions and stuff, but the movie felt pointless.   "

The gamers of the world will stand up against this!
Then they will become winded and sit back down to play more WoW

" @Darniaq: You can't disagree with that mindless mentality of "overcharge at any price"? You can't disagree with the concept of destroying the artistic vision of developers? You can't disagree with a focus away from producing quality products which are ~fun~ and towards sequel driven expansion pack driven crap?    No. He's not right.  A "good game" means a lot more than whether the end user is having fun? Then you can bloody well keep them then. And you can go down with Kotick's sinking ship, because fun, and, increasingly, artistic integrity is exactly what he's supposed to be selling. "

1. His overcharge comment was after he said "if he had his way". Which of course, he does not. He can want to charge $100 for MW2, but that doesn't change the fact that if he did, the forecasted sales would go down. But make no mistake either, there has been a price creep over the last decade. Not nearly as bad as some make it though. I remember paying $40 for Ultima III back in '84. And that was the second set of discs because I destroyed the first ones :)
2. "Good game" means:
1. It properly targeted the audience it wanted with the right experience.
2. It was priced appropriately for that audience.
3. It was built within budget of time and resources.
4. It sold as many (or more) units as projected, thus making back the amount of money they projected.

Gamers won't buy bad games from publishers they dislike.  Repetition, while it may be cheap, produces ephemeral results.  So, while Kotick has done a good job of building his company up in the short, many of his decisions could lead to less profitability over time.  Eventually, the disdain of the 'core audience leads to franchise failures and lower profit margins.  When the stock holders start to feel the pinch, the people at the top are in danger.  We saw this all before less than a decade ago.  At one point, Electronic Arts was the king of video games.  They had a stable of good, highly anticipated franchises which produced good numbers each holiday season.  But, then they got fat and arrogant.  Gamers grew to hate them and stopped buying their products.  It wasn't in large numbers, but enough to cause the people at the top to reevaluate their business plan.  Their main game franchises had become the butt of jokes for many 'core gamers.  And, while that may not seem to effect the mainstream market, there was a subconscious tone of disapproval that found its way into the reviews and conversations people had about EA games.  "Geez, another Medal of Honor?  Don't they all suck now?"  "Madden's crap now, someone needs to bring back 2K" "EA killed Bullfrog, I hate them...EA killed Westwood, I hate them"  And, so on.  We can already see those same feelings of contempt rising again, but this time, all the ire is focused on Activision.  Will there be some picket-signs and bra-burning rally against Activision that will make them care more about their product?  Unlikely, but over time, they will learn once again that if you abuse the customer, they'll take their business elsewhere.  It won't be a huge difference, but large enough to have them take notice.  There are plenty of other game makers out there who are more than willing to replace Activision games in the hearts and minds of the 'core audience, if given a chance.  If Kotick doesn't know it now, then he'll learn it as EA learned it. 

Two different points raised here:

1. His overcharge comment was after he said "if he had his way". Which of course, he does not. He can want to charge $100 for MW2, but that doesn't change the fact that if he did, the forecasted sales would go down. But make no mistake either, there has been a price creep over the last decade. Not nearly as bad as some make it though. I remember paying $40 for Ultima III back in '84. And that was the second set of discs because I destroyed the first ones :)
2. "Good game" means:
1. It properly targeted the audience it wanted with the right experience.
2. It was priced appropriately for that audience.
3. It was built within budget of time and resources.
4. It sold as many (or more) units as projected, thus making back the amount of money they projected.

This isn't about Kotick. It's about any large, most medium, and even some small companies. Developers don't stick around because they third-mortgaged their house to put out a one-hit wonder. They stick around because of the business decisions they make and the quality of the product they produce, against the above metrics.  It is thus in any consumer-oriented business. Government work, well, apparently you can do whatever you want and still get paid :) "

nope.

Hmm after reading this article, I don't feel like buying MW2 anymore. I mean I'll succumb to DJ Hero tomorrow, inevitably, however I really don't need ANOTHER FPS right now, so I can happily say I'll be skipping this one. After all this fisaco surrounding MW2, I'm sure that means the COD4 players will stick around on that game anyway, and other than some maps and guns there's really not much gameplay difference. 
 
Though bonus points to Kotick for being THAT cold, like holy shit, he's not even pretending to be nice like any other big-ass company, or company CEO.

" I hate to generalize but after playing games online since 1996 with Diablo I have made a few observations that seem to be statistically true. Most gamers are either one of two major categories that are easily exploitable.  They are either young, or irresponsible.  Because of this many will not be able to see the big picture: that their purchases support a company, and that said company may not respect them as a paying customer.  To them, the companies behind each game are nothing more than a name...      I don't think that boycotts can really do a whole lot to most game companies.  I mean look at the backlash for Spore, a major title.  A lot of angry people claimed to boycott the game but sales for Spore were still performing well.  Now look at what is happening with DLC.  Game developers are removing SDKs to eliminate any competition from free content from mod designers in lieu of having total control over additional content to their game.  That is fine and well, it is their game at the end of the day, but the reasoning behind it is horrible.  Having the competition of the mods works in favor of the customers as it keeps the companies honest by having to release quality content instead of being able to get away with releasing any ol' piece of crap.  DLC control obviously is the better choice for profit-hungry companies ( all of them ).  Also, I read an article about how Bobby's comment in that press conference was simply to put on a show for investors.  And if you believe that article, well, I am looking for someone to go back in time with meme... "

Wow how the tables have turned.  EA used to be this evil company but Activsion clearly takes the cake now.  I will still get MW2 but other that, what else do they have that I want?  I am counting on MW2 being the last FPS i ever buy until the next console generation.

You can't boycott something you don't want. I may or may not be boycotting MW2. I never bought MW1 (or any WWII COD for that matter) but I was indeed curious about the multiplayer. Same for MW2 -- If they sold only the MP for $40, then I would probably buy it.
 
I haven't considered boycotting Activision for the fact that the last game I bought from them was Prototype this year (and before that it was THPS8 in 2006). Pretty much everything they offer has a better counterpart from another publisher. I remember hating EA and wanting to boycott them when they were douching about, but that's because they actually offered products I was interested in.
 
But when you get down to it, COD is a bandwagon franchise that's meant to appeal to the mass market of casual gamer 18-34s and their tweenaged proteges. They could charge $80 USD for the standard edition, and people would buy it because it's "the" game to own.

The people who know and care about this make up about 10% of the market now. You need to reconcile with the fact that you're a loud minority and nothing more, "real" gamers.

Nope.
 
$60 on the PC version probably won't effect PC sales, console prices proved that consumers are still willing to purchase at that price point.
 
And dedicated servers only bother a fraction of the PC market.

I have feeling that Activision will have an exodus of talented developers.