" Anyone here who thinks that the way Bobby Kotick is running his company is the only real way to stay profitable needs to read this article: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6227735.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=hot-stories&tag=hot-stories;title;1 It discusses what it's like to work for Valve, and in it, you actually see Valve head Gabe Newell operating from antithetical principles to Kotick, to the point where he pays his valued employees even when they need to leave for medical reasons for six months. He also is the opposite of Kotick's whole "take the fun of out making video games," in that he actually encourages his employees to play games at the office, to help them build ideas. Last time I checked, Valve isn't doing too bad for themselves.... maybe some of you have heard of them. Oh, and unlike Activision, Valve has yet to release a product that wasn't profitable. "
So doesn't that mean that Valve is more risk-averse than Activision?
I won't speak for anyone else, but my comments were to point out that there is nothing unethical in selling something you own, including shares. You did not start this thread to illustrate the contrasts between good game publishing and bad game publishing, you started this thread to bash a CEO for being a CEO. As I said before, I think that Kotick is incorrect in attempting to 'remove fun' from an industry that is about producing fun, but that doesn't mean he's unethical, just that he's ignoring the source of value in the products he sells. It is foolish to do so, but not unethical. "
I disagree with your definition of ethical. What Kotick is essentially doing, at least according to his quotes, is making other people's lives shittier for the sole purpose of making him more money. Regardless if his viewpoint is actually true or not, he's still enabling a hostile environment for personal gain. That, to me, is unethical. And I didn't write this whole thing just to bash a CEO randomly. I've honestly never seen anyone be that blatant in his disregard for the people who work under him. He's unethical because of that very reason.
" I still don't understand why Blizzard joined up with these fuck heads, wasn't Wow bringing in enough cash for 10 companies? "
What's so hard to understand? Blizzards parent company bought Activision, then merged the companies. They have shareholder and shareholder expect growth, simple as that.
If this is the worst thing anyone's heard this week about the world, then you've had a short week. But yeah that guy's definitely a dick and it's too bad people like him get ahead in life acting that way.
I don’t like Kotick either but I think Sir Phobos is going a little overboard.
The guy focuses on the bottom line and is really overt about it. I prefer that over other execs who insult my intelligence by acting like they are running an altruistic commune.
And in Kotick’s defense his leadership brought the company back from bankruptcy and he has allowed Infinity Ward and Blizzard to operate independently enough to produce some real gems.
" Vote with your dollars y'all. It's all you can do. If you want cookie cutter, support big business. If you want creative, support small business. It's not complicated, or worthy of any more rage than any other massive company. Bobby is a refreshing asshole though. I appreciate his balls, even though I'd like very much to kick him in them. "
I think that that statement is completely divorced from reality. There are large companies that have produced profound works of interactive art (as well as craploads of hella-fun games) and there are small companies that aren't capable of producing anything but shit. The polarity of large/small is not parallel to that of bad/good. Every game developer will tell you that they want more revenue than expenditures, this is not evil, this is human. "
Sorry. I can't properly reply. My mouth is full of all the words you put into it.
" Oh man, all he has to comfort himself from the angry peoples on the internet is a wildly successful company. I'm sorry if pragmatism gets your goat but the results speak for themselves. "
The same results can be achieved by much better means. Look at Valve and Criterion, to name a couple of great companies. "
Criterion doesn't publish, they develop. And both companies rely on EA to distribute their games in the retail market. "
You miss my point. Valve and Criterion are great examples of companies who make great products while not screwing over the very people they want to buy their games. Publisher or developer makes no difference to what I was talking about. "
And that's fine, but they're much less successful when it comes to yearly net earnings. If it paid to be the nice guy, everybody would be the nice guy.
" Oh man, all he has to comfort himself from the angry peoples on the internet is a wildly successful company. I'm sorry if pragmatism gets your goat but the results speak for themselves. "
The same results can be achieved by much better means. Look at Valve and Criterion, to name a couple of great companies. "
Criterion doesn't publish, they develop. And both companies rely on EA to distribute their games in the retail market. "
You miss my point. Valve and Criterion are great examples of companies who make great products while not screwing over the very people they want to buy their games. Publisher or developer makes no difference to what I was talking about. "
And that's fine, but they're much less successful when it comes to yearly net earnings. If it paid to be the nice guy, everybody would be the nice guy.
"
lol.....I guess one of my basic points is that do we want to help foster this kind of thing? It's not like I'm advocating everyone should go insane and start living in the mountains divorced from the reality of the world. I think we can do simple things like, for instance, not buy Activision's products (at least new). It's a personal choice. Whether or not it affects the way a company does business depends on how many people are reacting and are vocal about what that company does. A lot of times, a vocal minority can affect change. And someone else in this thread said if this is the worst thing I've seen all week, then I haven't seen much or something to that effect. It's not like I'm so morally outraged at Bobby Kotick specifically that I'm frothing at the mouth and unable to function. I just think if we don't call out shit like this, it will continue.
And while Valve might not be *as* successful as Activision, I wouldn't say they're hurting. You dont have to make the maximum possible monitary amount at all times regardless of the way you go about it in order to be successful. That's called greed, and yea, Gekko up there is a good example of that.
I don’t like Kotick either but I think Sir Phobos is going a little overboard.
The guy focuses on the bottom line and is really overt about it. I prefer that other execs who insult my intelligence by acting like they are running an altruistic commune.
And in Kotick’s defense his leadership brought the company back from bankruptcy and he has allowed Infinity Ward and Blizzard to operate independently enough to produce some real gems.
"
Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you said, but you're basically saying you'd rather someone would spit directly in your face instead of walking past then talking about you behind your back. That makes no sense to me.
Also, I would hardly say Kotick is "allowing" Infinity Ward to make solid games. The whole reason we can all agree that IW and Blizzard are so great is because they create awesome games, and they sell phenomenally. That's why they have the wiggle room they do. Not the other way around. They don't put out quality *because* Kotick lets them.
That guy is a straight up asshole, I think that some of the developers for activision should go to better publishers who won't suck the money from the developers like a leech.
@Suicrat: I didn't mean to imply there was anything innately uncreative about being big business. It's just the trend I see, and backed up with most modern day examples I can think of. Small developers have to bring something fresh to be noticed. Established corporations only need to bring sequels and budgets. I feel this is an obvious point.
I certainly didn't say what are good games vs. bad. I'm not so blinkered to think I know the science of goodness. But if people want creativity to rule, then ponying up to big corporations that care primarily for the bottom line is probably not the shortest path. And of course even small devs care about the bottom line. But seeing as they have less at stake, they are more free to go against the grain.
@Damian: Evil exists, whether you believe it does or not. There is good (that which is worth pursuing), and there is its opposite. It comes in many forms. It's not a mysterious force, it's that which should objectively be avoided.
And I think the notion that small developers have less at stake is pretty specious. Small developers have far more at stake (e.g., their savings, their livelihoods), whereas risky ventures can be more easily absorbed by large companies. For every example of an indie darling, I can cite dozens of pieces of shit by other small developers and several high-quality titles published by big companies.
Sorry, but this article was a badly written, juvenile jar of nerd rage. I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny or exaggerate your scorn for this man. This is gonna sound like me being a dickhole, but this was below the quality of shit I read on Destructoid. I'm gonna try to be constructive and tell you to decide on the tone of your article lest it be more schizophrenic than Tyler Durden.
In any case, Bobby Kotick's an asshole with delusions of grandeur. Remember when he said that Activision MAAAAAAAY stop producing games for the PS3 unless sales go up?
What was the last game Activision actually developed? The Idea of punishing all the talented developers under the Activision banner is stupid, all we're doing hurting some one who doesn't deserve it and in the long run , ourselves. Besides wasn't this already discussed elsewhere?
@Suicrat: I'll agree to disagree on the evil thing as it's quite irrelevant. But as to the rest ...
I'm not speaking on quality. If this discussion were about quality (sound, graphics, script, tightly tuned mechanics and the like --the luxuries afforded by longer dev cycles and bigger budgets) I'd say pretty much the opposite of what I said in my last post. I'm talking about creativity (a major sore point to today's jaded gamer). And seeing as Activision is the biggest publisher with the most developers, sure the quality is relatively high, but the creativity is severely lacking. Activision isn't known for churning out annual, iterative sequels arbitrarily. It's a practice EA started, and Activision has since picked up the ball and ran laps around EA with. They've fostered and earned their reputation, and that is the price you pay for profit. They can laugh themselves to the bank with that. But I say fuck them for it. It's a matter of perspective.
To bring this back around to topic, Bobby said himself that he makes developing games less fun. How is that going to translate into a more creative product? As an artist myself, I can tell you with all sincerity that an atmosphere based on profit will do much to suppress a creative spirit, be it in the individual or a larger, more experienced team. If what is put first is the market, the result will be a safe bet every time.
" I still don't understand why Blizzard joined up with these fuck heads, wasn't Wow bringing in enough cash for 10 companies? "
What's so hard to understand? Blizzards parent company bought Activision, then merged the companies. They have shareholder and shareholder expect growth, simple as that. "
How about I didn't know that but now I'm informed.
" @Suicrat: I'll agree to disagree on the evil thing as it's quite irrelevant. But as to the rest ...
I'm not speaking on quality. If this discussion were about quality (sound, graphics, script, tightly tuned mechanics and the like --the luxuries afforded by longer dev cycles and bigger budgets) I'd say pretty much the opposite of what I said in my last post. I'm talking about creativity (a major sore point to today's jaded gamer). And seeing as Activision is the biggest publisher with the most developers, sure the quality is relatively high, but the creativity is severely lacking. Activision isn't known for churning out annual, iterative sequels arbitrarily. It's a practice EA started, and Activision has since picked up the ball and ran laps around EA with. They've fostered and earned their reputation, and that is the price you pay for profit. They can laugh themselves to the bank with that. But I say fuck them for it. It's a matter of perspective. To bring this back around to topic, Bobby said himself that he makes developing games less fun. How is that going to translate into a more creative product? As an artist myself, I can tell you with all sincerity that an atmosphere based on profit will do much to suppress a creative spirit, be it in the individual or a larger, more experienced team. If what is put first is the market, the result will be a safe bet every time. "
You bring up some interesting points, but also a couple fallacies, and I just thought I'd attempt to illustrate them. Firstly the notion that a publishing house with annual franchises is incapable of risk.
Another poster had pointed out earlier that Valve has never lost money on any game they've published (I'm not sure if it's true, but for the sake of argument, let's say that it is). Whereas Activision has lost money on several games. That would mean that from a fiscal standpoint (i.e., from Bobby Kotick's perspective), Activision is far less risk-averse than Valve. Now, personally, I haven't played an Activision-published game since Geometry Wars II, and before that it was Rome Total War (a franchise that is now being published by Sega), so I can't speak to the quality of individual games. Though Activision's strategy has been to focus on titles that are bankable, and then proceed to bank on them, that is what keeps them in business. I cannot fault an entity (person or company) for trying to survive and succeeding, that is simply not a part of my psychological make-up.
On the other hand, I also mentioned earlier on that Mr. Kotick has, to a certain extent, lost sight of what it is his company is producing. Trying to take the fun out of video game development is like trying to take the messiness out of oil extraction, on both fronts the two are inextricably linked. A video game developer's job is to produce enjoyment, and attempting to prevent him from enjoying that process seems to be inimical to producing fun. On that front, we are in agreement.
I just question the notion that both you and Mr. Kotick seem to share (although admittedly you seem to fall on opposite sides of the same coin) that cutting costs, and cutting the fun out of game development are one in the same. I believe a CEO can be a fiscal hawk and laissez-faire with his developers at the same time. Instead of trying to cut down on office time (because office time costs money), or turning the development house into a sweatshop, CEOs can cut costs in marketing, packaging costs, production costs (e.g., making more titles available for direct purchase download), manufacturing costs (e.g., by outsourcing production of plastic instruments and plastic skateboards), and any number of other areas that don't adversely affect the quality of the product. When J.D. Rockerfeller tried to cut costs from oil production, he didn't try to dilute his product with water (no one would have bought it), he cut costs in barrel production, solder usage, transit costs, et cetera, not from the quality of his product. Unfortunately, Kotick doesn't seem to share that level of insight or wisdom, but I don't think any of this makes him unethical.
I think what we have in the person of Bobby Kotick and the company of Activision is a CEO who thinks he's too good for the company he runs. He resents the source of his wealth, and therefore does not try to think like a CEO of a game company, but instead a CEO of a junk-stock company. You need to respect your product if you're a good CEO, and I don't think that Kotick is capable of that (At least, he hasn't demonstrated it). Again, I don't think that means that he's unethical, just a bad CEO. I think in some ways, he's a victim of the same mentality that you are, that art and profit are incompatible. Better CEOs realize that creativity is what video games are banking on, not the brand name, not the ad campagin, but the game itself (ultimately). A franchise needs only one flop for it to fall by the wayside, and no amount of flashy advertising or cross-promotion with KFC will obscure poor product quality from critics and fans (Just look at the ever-declining sales of the Tony Hawk franchise). The moment Kotick tries to extract fun from Call of Duty (for example, I wouldn't know as I haven't played it) is the moment the Call of Duty franchise dies.
Anyways, great discussion, Damian. Let's keep having fun with words and arguments! (I find this fun, don't know about you ;))
dang, sounds stupid to do that. from what the sounds of that are he wants to make a guitar hero game that doesn't require a console to play it on. it just reminds me of those stupid toys that u see where u can plug it into the tv and the thing has cartoon characters talking.
well, i'm still going to be buying modern warfare 2 but o well.
i also think that they are making to many rhythm based games. they have made five guitar hero games already it seems like they make them every year. soon they are going to be making bands have their own guitar hero games, guitar hero: metallica, guitar hero: led zeppelin ( unrealist )
The obvious focal point here is Kotick's quote about "taking the fun out making video games," which I think is an incredibly poor choice of words for what he's really saying, "video game companies need to focus on the bottom line more, and we instituted a culture that is more about profit." Speaking as a person who has no idea what goes on at a Deutsche Bank Securities Technology Conference, I would assume that his choice of words was much more appropriate for that locale than in the gaming press, and that he didn't anticipate having this be reported on by GameSpot. Even so, the majority of consumers of Activision products don't know who Bobby Kotick is, and I'd wager most don't even know what Activision is, so Kotick's quote will likely go largely unnoticed.
I don't have a problem with what he's saying. It's what he's doing that I detest, which is milking the heck out of the money franchises. (MW2 PC for $60/ DJ Hero for $120? trying to increase MSRP and profit margins by packaging a plastic peripheral in games)Companies have a right to charge whatever they want but consumers also have the right to not only refuse to buy said product but also voice their displeasure on the attempt by companies to raise prices on their products.
While I should be unsurprised at how much of an arrogant prick Kotick is, he could honestly come out and say "Fuck all of you retards who go out and buy Guitar Hero/Band Hero/DJ Hero XXXXXX and the newest Treyarch CoD." and the company would still be loaded. You know why? People outside of the, for lack of a better term, "hardcore" crowd have no idea who the hell this dickhead is. All they know is that their annual copies of GH and CoD bare the name Activision. Some people might not even pay attention to that. Even if everyone on this site stopped buying their games, they'd still laugh all the way to the bank.
That said, this doucher should probably at least pretend not to be a total jerk. It's a key skill in the business he's in.
he is a dick but ya know...hes honest and it seems like ActiBlizzard is thr new EA so whoopde fucking pull the pole out of your ass man!i hate him but...i gotta say he is not different than anyone else!
Likely, this comment will be lost to the void, but Kotick is only a face to a pervasive and unified evil that reaches across several large publishers and companies, in games and creative media in general.
For example, as an animator (traditional hand drawn frames, effects, bg art as well as 3D and all that) -I already have an EXTREMELY hard time finding work. Kotick represents the mouth that opens when it shouldn't and inadvertently makes a statement about how production comes to life in basically any major-name creative arena. Of course, the 3D animation industry would have you believe it's a happy collective hive that produces UP, or the Marvel Movies, but it's not for many. The people there struggle their asses off in a way that those in Disney's golden era of animatoin during the 90's, did not. Their struggle is different, in that they are expected not only to be talented, know all of the tricks from that golden age, and be extremely pressured in 200 ways, including the structure on which their job security rests, while also inventing and creating. This is literally the same in game development, as there would be no game with no animation. Now extend that to every facet of how a game becomes playable and immersive, from design, programming, music, coordination etc, and every single one of the people employed in mentioned areas is stifled and pressured exactly the same way. Then, uniquely to game development houses. multiply the stress of an animation studio's production, because a working, moving parts package that is a video game, that is expected to advertise, play well, have all the things it's competition does, and be the cutting edge, and the player expectation threshold of 15-200 hours of content minimum, and you have exactly the situation that makes AAA game a shadow of what vision the studio had for it. Publisher pressure is the reason, more than half the time.
This has gone on way too long, and while unionizing is one road, a mainstream awareness is needed for why their media isn't always 10/10 good. Publisher greed is often the problem, which shouldn't surprise or be tolerated. Write about it, don't ignore the problem, speak up, but also, be clear with your message that it is EA/Activision/whatever publisher that propagates this business behavior specifically, that you want to change. Yell that from the mountain. What I do see too often, and it becomes very hard to separate because as game players, people are passionate whether what they play is good, or bad, is a knee jerk reaction to yell at the developers. I never, ever want a game to actively fail unless it's an asset flip. Many people have agendas around games doing well, or setting themselves on platforms to speak on authority about how development should work and how ___ studio fucked up. This isn't how it works. Often, developers do fuck up. MORE often, developers are pressured into fucking up. Kotick is just a face to a practice that makes this happen.
I just felt like writing that out because I have friends in several major game studios under activision, EA, and so on, so on. They work and invent and produce so much for so little acknowledgement, if any, and their livelihoods depend on the success of what they make getting bought and seen on projections by publishers. Creating something as big as a video game to earn even it's right to exist these days is a pressure that should not exist. Take that further, and a game comes up short when it could have been so much more, (really, it's Giantbomb, pick any franchise talked about the last year and it's hard to miss), and you have a perpetuated culture that forces literal retardation of what 'could be'. And we actively support this by giving the money to the publishers, which if we don't, effectively death sentences studios. This needs to change.
I disagree with the corporate culture he's building, taking the fun out of any business is sure fire way to create a toxic environment with high turnover and eventual collapse IMO.
I'm not sure i picked up on anything else about what he said that was bad ? I skimmed through it though, just seemed like he gassing his company up to shareholders (which is what you do lol) and talking about how he sees the future being publishers no longer needing console makers?
I'm guessing this thread got necroed because Jim Sterling did a video on him that featured devil horns on his head.
I don't think firing Kotick will fix anything, if anything his video proves the point that some other asshole will come in and basically do the exact same thing Kotick is doing. We really have to change the system. Agree with me or not, 800 people being fired because of company growth isn't good.
Anyway, support indie development and unions and such among other things.
Bobby Kotick is an absolute asshole, always as been always will be. Satoru Iwata took a pay cut when Nintendo weren't doing so well, really highlights the difference between the type of people who run these companies. Activision Blizzard aren't even struggling, they're doing well which makes the loss of jobs worse.
I genuinely feel for Blizzard as I feel like there are good people working there who could do so much better without Activision. I was delighted to see Bungie get away and it gives me faith in Destiny's future at this point. Kotick is the representation of everything I hate about the business world. As gamers we aren't blameless however, because we continue to buy into the same crap they make every year in Call of Duty.
Log in to comment