Kotick is an asshole

[Noise]

http://www.geeks.co.uk/7282-activision%E2%80%99s-bobby-kotick-hates-developers-innovation-cheap-game s-you (http://www.geeks.co.uk/7282-activision%E2%80%99s-bobby-kotick-hates-developers-innovation-cheap-games-you)

There's only one opinion you can possibly have after reading that, and that is that that man is a detriment to the games industry and an asshole.

Point of discussion is, how will this way of thinking affect Blizzard now that Activision and Blizzard are in bed together?

Also, there's no chance I would get MW2 now.

[Visions of Khas]

Link not found.

[Blazur]

Corrected link: http://www.geeks.co.uk/7282-activision%E2%80%99s-bobby-kotick-hates-developers-innovation-cheap-games-you

I got a few more to throw at you...gimme a sec to dig.

- Bobby Kotick Wanted To Take All The Fun Out Of Making Video Games (http://kotaku.com/5359567/bobby-kotick-wanted-to-take-all-the-fun-out-of-making-video-games)
- Kotick: Most Gamers Prefer Sequels to New IP (http://kotaku.com/5341272/kotick-most-gamers-prefer-sequels-to-new-ip)
- When An Activision Boss Jokes About Raising Game Prices... (http://kotaku.com/5331849/when-an-activision-boss-jokes-about-raising-game-prices)

Kotick is loathsome, and to think he may have an influence on Blizzard disgusts me. How this schmuck became a CEO with his perchance for faux pas at the expense of the industry is beyond me. Activision's reputation will indefinitely be tarnished for me with this asshat at the helm.

Oh, and spare me the arguments about Activision being a company that needs to make money. While that's well known, it doesn't excuse him for being so direct with his desire to milk franchises for every penny as a tradeoff for innovation.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2007/20071205.jpg

[Sarov]

He is definitely an asshole, Noise. I hate him just because of the article Blazur linked. What I can say, what doesn't include swearing and threats, is that his attempts to pry me of my money for World of Warcraft fail. I have never once payed for it even though I have played it. And Modern Warfare 2? Never wanted to buy it in the first place.

To say it in the nicest way possible without going into any great detail of what I would do to him: that man must die.

[DemolitionSquid]

So who is more loathsome? Bobby Kotick, or Jack Thompson?

[Xyvik]

Men like him make me ashamed to be in the games industry. Yeah, I'm a bit hot-headed and too quick to say what I think at times but there's no way in the depths of Hades I'd ever even think what this man actually says, and apparently believes.

The world will be a better place without such people in the games industry.

[Blazur]

So who is more loathsome? Bobby Kotick, or Jack Thompson?

Jack Thompson. While Kotick is a huge prick at least he provides us gamers with entertainment. Thompson on the other hand was only trying to impede on our fun by advocating against controversial titles. Thank god he's been disbarred.

[Zero]

I was about to change the name of this topic to make it more friendly, but after reading that article, I think I'll spice it up a bit.

Anyway, I disagree Blazur, I think Kotick is worse. Jack Thompson is who he is based off of his law degree, which I hope is still revoked from his last incident. He was a man who wanted to be angry at something, and ended up choosing video games. Aside from his various rants and schemes, he hasn't actually done anything that has hurt the video game community as a whole, he's just an angry old man.

Mr. Kotick, on the other hand, also is an influential position, but not because he worked hard for a law degree that he only has himself to thank, but rather because he got where he is because he's the head of a company that made its money developing video games. He didn't make himself powerful and rich, the gamers who bought his game did. And now, rather than showing some appreciation for the gamers that gave him money, or for the lowly programmers/artists/etc that made those games, he's shown himself to be a completely greedy piece of human trash by squeezing every penny out of the gaming community and turn his employees into mindless cubicle zombies. But Zero, aren't most CEOs and company presidents greedy douchebags? Yes, they are, but at least they try to sugarcoat the truth when they're shafting the little guys. Kotick, on the other hand, openly and publicly spit in the faces of everyone who's made him who he is. And sooner or later, that's going to catch up to him. I just hope when it does, Blizzard will be far enough away to avoid any damage.

[Zabimaru]

Kotick knows that he’s invulnerable

It’s always fun to destroy those who think they are invincible… and the funny thing is, they usually end up destroying themselves anyway...

[spychi]

I will like to see him die covered with unsold MW2! Fucking asshole!
I won't buy the game and I already called a boycott in our country! Don't buy games from Activision!
they deleted threads, called gamers stupid! said that they sell things for 100 $ or for 500$ things that costs 50$. Burn Acti in agony! Your MW 2 sucks! And I will pirate it and I would recommend everyone to do the same.

Saint words Zero, saint words, I hope he will be a homeless bankrupt
join this steam group if you have a steam account
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/mw2b

[LordofAscension]

I was about to change the name of this topic to make it more friendly, but after reading that article, I think I'll spice it up a bit.

Is it funny that I was going to say the same thing? lol.

Though I feel and share your nerd rage - try to keep it under control. Make points against him - but don't just yell... that's part of the reason to non-gamers we look like idiots.

~LoA

[spychi]

Is it funny that I was going to say the same thing? lol.

Though I feel and share your nerd rage - try to keep it under control. Make points against him - but don't just yell... that's part of the reason to non-gamers we look like idiots.

~LoA

I understand that but if they delete threads and they censore actions of boycott we need to change our way of conversation!

[sandwich_bird]

The guy might ben an asshole but you can't decide that with only this. The medias can with ease deform anything by interpreting everything the way they want. In any case, if he raises the prices too much, he won't sell anything. There's nothing wrong with making the most profit out of what you sell, you would do it too. Anyone would. The only reason he might be an asshole is because of that "we must inspire fear in the devloppers" thing. Did he really say this? With those words? In what context? Even then, if the devloppers are slacking off like idiots, there's no reasons why they shouldn't put more pressure on them.

[spychi]

The guy might ben an asshole but you can't decide that with only this. The medias can with ease deform anything by interpreting everything the way they want. In any case, if he raises the prices too much, he won't sell anything. There's nothing wrong with making the most profit out of what you sell, you would do it too. Anyone would. The only reason he might be an asshole is because of that "we must inspire fear in the devloppers" thing. Did he really say this? With those words? In what context? Even then, if the devloppers are slacking off like idiots, there's no reasons why they shouldn't put more pressure on them.

There are also other things he said previously, like how he could make game more expensive than they are, or how they change the price taking the Dollar=Euro currency.

[Zero]

Is it funny that I was going to say the same thing? lol.

Though I feel and share your nerd rage - try to keep it under control. Make points against him - but don't just yell... that's part of the reason to non-gamers we look like idiots.

~LoA

Actually, I was going to add "money-grubbing" to the title, but I forgot.



The guy might ben an asshole but you can't decide that with only this. The medias can with ease deform anything by interpreting everything the way they want. In any case, if he raises the prices too much, he won't sell anything. There's nothing wrong with making the most profit out of what you sell, you would do it too. Anyone would. The only reason he might be an asshole is because of that "we must inspire fear in the devloppers" thing. Did he really say this? With those words? In what context? Even then, if the devloppers are slacking off like idiots, there's no reasons why they shouldn't put more pressure on them.

I doubt that his words were being manipulated and taken out of context. This was a public event, and multiple gaming sources have commented on the same thing with this guy. I'm sure he'll give some sort of a bogus apology. If he does, I hope it'd be public, and that someone would pie him in the face like a while back when someone pied Bill Gates.

[Gifted]

Just a little bit of internal perception about how Activision has influenced, or rather, not influenced the way that Blizzard operates.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/blizzard-s-frank-pearce_4

[Xyvik]

Just a little bit of internal perception about how Activision has influenced, or rather, not influenced the way that Blizzard operates.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/blizzard-s-frank-pearce_4

That article is over a year old. And you've been telling us this for awhile, but Gifted, you're showing a bit of misunderstanding here.

Both Activision and Blizzard are owned by the public, otherwise known as being companies in which you can purchase stock. Any company that is owned by the public is run by a board of directors that is responsible to the public. The board of directors is mixed, it's not a "oh, this is Blizzard's board of directors and this is Activision's board of directors." It's simply: this is Activision-Blizzard's board of directors.

To be technically correct, actually, both of them are owned by Vivendi, so once again, as much as you or anybody else would like to state (yes, I've read the ex-manager's opinion) they are one and the same company. At any time Vivendi, and/or the board of directors, can say that they want things done this way. And you know what? Blizzard doesn't have a say in the matter. They are under a legally binding contract and they will follow through with it.

So what if Frank Pearce is interviewed and says publicly that everything is hunky-dory? You expect him to say otherwise? If he said publicly "things suck, we're totally being dominated by Activision's style over here!" guess what happens? He gets sued for slander (libel, too, since his opinions were published in written form) and he loses his job, a multi-million dollar job. You honestly think he's going to open his mouth when that's on the line?

To quote him: "I think the inspiration that Bobby gave was that 'we're going to leave you guys alone to do what you want to do and we're not going to change it'. Because Activision has such an experienced management team they recognise the value in what we've created up to this point and how we've achieved that success and they want us to continue to go down that path"

That opinion of Mr. Kotick can change at any moment, and it might already have done so. And because Blizzard is not its own owner, there is not a single legal thing they can do about it.

We can hope that things remain status quo. But it would be naive in the extreme to think that things can't change. So let's keep hoping, but make sure that the Activision side of things loses as much money as possible. Maybe then the board and Vivendi will realize that Kotick's way isn't the right way.

[Norfindel]

I think that those programmers would likely just slam the door and go work elsewere, but how much of the game companies are part of Activision?

[Pandonetho]

Only in the states can a robber sue your ass for injuring himself for falling on a knife while trying to rob your house.

[Zero]

I know. Disappointing, isn't it? In the land where the criminals have more rights than the victims.



Anyway, back on Kotick, found this on FunnyJunk:

http://static.funnyjunk.com/pictures/king.png

[n00bonicPlague]

Kotick is such a weird name.

I think we should shorten it to Kock.



"The name's Kock......Bobby Kock."

[Gifted]

That article is over a year old. And you've been telling us this for awhile, but Gifted, you're showing a bit of misunderstanding here.

Both Activision and Blizzard are owned by the public, otherwise known as being companies in which you can purchase stock. Any company that is owned by the public is run by a board of directors that is responsible to the public. The board of directors is mixed, it's not a "oh, this is Blizzard's board of directors and this is Activision's board of directors." It's simply: this is Activision-Blizzard's board of directors.

To be technically correct, actually, both of them are owned by Vivendi, so once again, as much as you or anybody else would like to state (yes, I've read the ex-manager's opinion) they are one and the same company. At any time Vivendi, and/or the board of directors, can say that they want things done this way. And you know what? Blizzard doesn't have a say in the matter. They are under a legally binding contract and they will follow through with it.

So what if Frank Pearce is interviewed and says publicly that everything is hunky-dory? You expect him to say otherwise? If he said publicly "things suck, we're totally being dominated by Activision's style over here!" guess what happens? He gets sued for slander (libel, too, since his opinions were published in written form) and he loses his job, a multi-million dollar job. You honestly think he's going to open his mouth when that's on the line?

To quote him: "I think the inspiration that Bobby gave was that 'we're going to leave you guys alone to do what you want to do and we're not going to change it'. Because Activision has such an experienced management team they recognise the value in what we've created up to this point and how we've achieved that success and they want us to continue to go down that path"

That opinion of Mr. Kotick can change at any moment, and it might already have done so. And because Blizzard is not its own owner, there is not a single legal thing they can do about it.

We can hope that things remain status quo. But it would be naive in the extreme to think that things can't change. So let's keep hoping, but make sure that the Activision side of things loses as much money as possible. Maybe then the board and Vivendi will realize that Kotick's way isn't the right way.Xyvik, understand that the only reason I posted that link is that it stands to show how "little" things have changed at Blizzard since Activision took over.

Activision's president is still fully business-minded and not gamer-minded. Making games for gamers is good for business.. so whether his ideals are "poor" or "well-stated" the bottom line is Activision will still make games. And as long as the games have some good value, gamers will buy them. So all and all, his mentality is at least compatible.

This doesn't change that fact that I don't support him at all either. I'm on the same page as you guys. My brother works as an AP at Activision. (A good way to think of it, imagine him as a right hand man to Chris Sigaty in comparison) Despite the fact that Kotick may be poor, I know that on the inside, he and everyone he works with have a passion for the work and that's what drives him. That's probably why I'm able to overlook Kotick's demeanor and shenanigans... I know that the people producing the games are passionate about games... Why worry about their bosses? *shrugs*

The reason I linked that article was the overall feel that even though they have a new company above their head, Blizzard isn't really changed at all. They took orders from the old company, they take the same orders from the new company. The bosses make the decisions and the designers, programmers, testers and producers still have passion and the freedom to do it the way they've always done it. The only difference is that Activision is the company doing the barking instead of Vivendi... but someone has always been barking. And according to information provided, the barking has always been to the point "Do what you keep doing, it works". Besides, if you want to take Senior Overlord Kotick into this point, he'll want Blizzard to do what they're doing. They make massive amounts of money, he should only need to step in if they fail.

I'm not arguing that Blizzard does what the barking tells it to do... I'm just saying the barking existed before Activision, and if fate pulls them apart the barking will exist after Activision. Nothing has changed.

Between my brother and my peer and my own experience assistant producing two games I'm able to keep rather grounded when the "Blizzard-Activision" conversation comes up :)

[Nicol Bolas]

But Zero, aren't most CEOs and company presidents greedy douchebags? Yes, they are, but at least they try to sugarcoat the truth when they're shafting the little guys.

Hey, if someone's going to screw me like a $2 whore, I'd rather they were up front about it ;) It's the greedy douchebags who aren't open about it that annoy me. The Telecoms who suckle from the teat of their monopolies and have the unmitigated gall to argue against network neutrality with ridiculous lies and such, when we all know that the reason they're against it is that they want to keep their monopoly on delivering content.

Just say it: we want your money!

Besides. Bobby is mostly playing to the shareholders here. They don't give a damn about games or gamers; they want to know what Bobby's doing to increase profits next quarter. They love hearing about profit margins and such.

And in this economy, shareholders are watching profits very closely.

[Gifted]

Hey, if someone's going to screw me like a $2 whore, I'd rather they were up front about it ;)You had me at "2$ whore".... (Laughed out loud)

Seriously though, I think Nicol's opinion is a good one on this subject.

[Xyvik]

So neither of you two find it in the least bit galling what this man has said? It doesn't bother you that his views are being picked up by the majority of the industry?

You have no qualms whatsoever about a future in which the only games we get are milked-out cash cows and sequels?

Maybe I just enjoy my gaming too much, but this man, his opinions, and the way the industry are going are frightening in the extreme. The only way to prevent such things from happening are to do something about it. As someone famous once said: "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

And yes, Gifted, I know why you linked it. I respect your opinion and the opinion of your brother and your other insiders, but you're really just low men on the totem pole when it comes to the corporate environment, even if your brother is an AP. If the "barking", as you so aptly put it, decides they like this new voice of Kotick, then they're going to start barking those orders.

Why do you think Valve Software was so desperate to get out from under Vivendi Universal? It wasn't entirely so they could make all their own money. It was because Vivendi was trying its hardest to tell Valve to do things Valve didn't want to do. The only reason Vivendi may currently be letting Blizzard "do their own thing" is because they have that wonderful 25%-50% profit margin known as WoW. If future MMOs (like The Old Republic) begin biting into that profit margin, Vivendi may not be so free-wheeling with their slaves.

[DemolitionSquid]

I am SO hoping SW:TOR takes a bite out of WoW.

[Gifted]

So neither of you two find it in the least bit galling what this man has said? It doesn't bother you that his views are being picked up by the majority of the industry?

You have no qualms whatsoever about a future in which the only games we get are milked-out cash cows and sequels?

Maybe I just enjoy my gaming too much, but this man, his opinions, and the way the industry are going are frightening in the extreme. The only way to prevent such things from happening are to do something about it. As someone famous once said: "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

And yes, Gifted, I know why you linked it. I respect your opinion and the opinion of your brother and your other insiders, but you're really just low men on the totem pole when it comes to the corporate environment, even if your brother is an AP. If the "barking", as you so aptly put it, decides they like this new voice of Kotick, then they're going to start barking those orders.

Why do you think Valve Software was so desperate to get out from under Vivendi Universal? It wasn't entirely so they could make all their own money. It was because Vivendi was trying its hardest to tell Valve to do things Valve didn't want to do. The only reason Vivendi may currently be letting Blizzard "do their own thing" is because they have that wonderful 25%-50% profit margin known as WoW. If future MMOs (like The Old Republic) begin biting into that profit margin, Vivendi may not be so free-wheeling with their slaves.Thanks for respecting the opinion. Here are some further elaborations for ya :)


Before we go on, I don't agree with Kotick's opinion on it whatsoever on a personal level. I'd agree with many people who call him an IinsertInsultingNameHere- on a PERSONAL level. But with my own experience and connections across the industry, I'm able to look at it from another level which I'd consider an "industry" level for lack of a better term.
I think that all opinions, whether I agree with them or not in the industry have a purpose. Kotick's purpose is to keep the stockholders going. What a "public" opinion when reading this is to immediately assume that the entire company will be moneygrubbing when that's not the case. Activision is a business first and foremost. Good games mean good business. Every producer at Activision (who is NOT a low man on the totem pole) that I've met are VERY passionate about the games they produce. My theory is, if the people who have their elbows deep in the games are passionate, THEY are the people who hold the industry's future... just because the man says that business comes first.. doesn't mean that he doesn't understand that good products sell more products. In this case, while I may percieve Kotick as the person who could be "evil"... he serves a purpose. He keeps the money going into the business so that those passionate individuals can make solid games.
While your quote is VERY solid about "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." The truth is that a person should know their place and pick their battles. All we know is what he says publically. I don't have a clue what the REAL truth is. Is he providing that information publically ONLY for investors? Is he hiring people beneath him full of passion so he doesn't have to worry about that level? Are the majority of his "decisions" relating to meddling with projects or just delegating and trusting in the individuals he has trusted with the jobs in charge? There is so much we have unconfirmed that even if I had the ability to change anything... I am not in a position to know if my "goodly crusade against evil" has any justification other than a few articles in the media and a few quotes.
The majority of items relating Activision as "changing" or "controlling" Blizzard is wrong from the people I've talked to on both sides. Any argument against that point to me is based on pure speculation, poor sources or personal prejudice that's been presented so far. The only things I've had confirmed are benefits. Increased resources on both sides and improved job security, removing fears of any sort of layoffs. This is, of course, only what I've heard though through sources I know are confirmed. I'm sorry I'm unable to confirm that to you but that's part of why I feel "alright" with this on an industry level, even if I think Kotick is a dink on a personal level. (From the limited amount of MEDIA that we've been presented with.)


I don't mean to insult your opinion, but I feel it good to reply to a few of your statements:

"The only reason Vivendi may currently be letting Blizzard "do their own thing" is because they have that wonderful 25%-50% profit margin known as WoW." Do you have a source? Do you have anything other than speculation to know about this? Could there be anything about their reputation in the industry? Their history of success? I mean, there are so many factors that could contribute to why they'll "leave them alone"... Why would this be the ONLY reason?
"If the "barking", as you so aptly put it, decides they like this new voice of Kotick, then they're going to start barking those orders." Do you feel that there is any semblance of any information provided about Blizzard that would involve a mentality that doesn't involve "creating high quality games?" I mean, the 3 founding members are considered three of the largest geeks in the industry... going so far as to create a band named after a game... Do you think they'd leave their ideals so easy because of the voice of a man who cares about business?
"Why do you think Valve Software was so desperate to get out from under Vivendi Universal? It wasn't entirely so they could make all their own money. It was because Vivendi was trying its hardest to tell Valve to do things Valve didn't want to do." That's true, but at the same time, even if Vivendi was telling Blizzard what to do, we can't argue that it was in any way poor judgements? I mean, look at everything they've done thus far.. it's been solid success story which other companies try to emulate the moment it comes out. Do you have a public source for this (I bet you can find one, I think I've heard this too) But at the same time, have we had any complaints publically about Vivendi or Activision doing this to Blizzard? Do we have any source to support this speculation that Blizzard is under the same oppression? I believe we can find sources stating the opposite.


I don't mean to rip your opinion apart, it's still an opinion that deserves respect. I think it's just laiden with a little fear and speculation as we don't know what's truly happening on the inside in many cases. It's easy to assume the worst if you don't know what's really happening. From what I hear from all that I talk to, all it is when a game is created in either Activision or Blizzard involves people passionate about games who want to make them the best games possible. Blizzard takes this to a WHOLE NEW LEVEL. I have more contacts in other companies, many of which peers from other projects. I can honestly say that from what I understand, Blizzard is by far a beast of it's own. Passion seeps from the walls there... Where else do you get to build up a set of armor by staying there long enough?

Back to the subject of Kotick and in summary... I see there is no reason that a person who is jacked up about business can not be compatible with a staff that is passionate to make good games. The goal is the same. Good games make good money.. and good money allows people to make good games. He may be an evil rarity in the industry, one who openly admits his views, but as long as good games come out from under his industrial lackluster approach and the people under him work with passion and happiness, I feel that measures more for good than evil.

[Gifted]

EDIT: Double post due to some odd lag.

[Xyvik]

Let me put it this way: all of your points are good and valid if you're looking at the industry from the outside. Yes, your brother may be in the industry but an AP isn't exactly the best way to find out about something either. He's either seen the bad and is keeping quiet about it because a paycheck is on the line (which I doubt) or he hasn't seen everything that goes on.

I've seen the industry from the inside, I know a lot of what happens behind closed doors. I won't name names, times, or details because that would be unprofessional in the extreme, but let's just say I have a firsthand experience with Vivendi Universal and the way they do business.

So taking a perspective from inside the games industry, or ANY industry that is run by stockholders, I can tell you with 100% confidence that just because something seems to be working right now doesn't mean it can't change in a heartbeat. Allow me to use one tiny example, one that is relevant to our discussion. Vivendi Universal shut down Sierra Entertainment. Sierra was in the red, yes, but it wasn't that large of a loss. Within a year at most they would have been back in the black and doing fine. Somebody in Vivendi, or in the stockholders circle, decided it was best to close down Sierra.


Could there be anything about their reputation in the industry? Their history of success? I mean, there are so many factors that could contribute to why they'll "leave them alone"... Why would this be the ONLY reason?

The reputation and history of success of Sierra didn't stop Vivendi Universal from shutting down one of the biggest names from the golden early days of PC gaming. What makes you think that they'll have any qualms about telling Blizzard what to do if things turn a little south?

Even if they have sworn to never interfere with Blizzard, even if they could, or would, somehow stand up to a room full of angry stockholders if said stockholders demanded a change in Blizzard, none of that really matters. What matters is that we have a man in charge of a games company who has said he is "instilling a culture of “scepticism, pessimism, and fear” amongst the company’s staff based around the economic depression and an incentive program that rewards “profit and nothing else”."

When a man like that is in charge of a company with that much public awareness and that much money involved, the ideas can spread to other companies. It can spread to stockholders. It can spread, heaven forbid, into Blizzard. I'm not saying it has happened. I'm not even saying it will necessarily happen. I'm just saying that if you think it can't happen you really have no clue how the games industry works.

Let's just be happy Blizzard is doing status quo right now and hope that it stays that way for as long as humanly possible. Right now they and Valve are the only games companies who seem to actually care about integrity and games, and not just the bottom line.

[Noise]

Bravo, sir

[Pandonetho]

Hey Zero, where did you find that picture of DemolitionSquid from?

[Gifted]

Let me put it this way: all of your points are good and valid if you're looking at the industry from the outside. Yes, your brother may be in the industry but an AP isn't exactly the best way to find out about something either. He's either seen the bad and is keeping quiet about it because a paycheck is on the line (which I doubt) or he hasn't seen everything that goes on.

I've seen the industry from the inside, I know a lot of what happens behind closed doors. I won't name names, times, or details because that would be unprofessional in the extreme, but let's just say I have a firsthand experience with Vivendi Universal and the way they do business.

So taking a perspective from inside the games industry, or ANY industry that is run by stockholders, I can tell you with 100% confidence that just because something seems to be working right now doesn't mean it can't change in a heartbeat. Allow me to use one tiny example, one that is relevant to our discussion. Vivendi Universal shut down Sierra Entertainment. Sierra was in the red, yes, but it wasn't that large of a loss. Within a year at most they would have been back in the black and doing fine. Somebody in Vivendi, or in the stockholders circle, decided it was best to close down Sierra.



The reputation and history of success of Sierra didn't stop Vivendi Universal from shutting down one of the biggest names from the golden early days of PC gaming. What makes you think that they'll have any qualms about telling Blizzard what to do if things turn a little south?

Even if they have sworn to never interfere with Blizzard, even if they could, or would, somehow stand up to a room full of angry stockholders if said stockholders demanded a change in Blizzard, none of that really matters. What matters is that we have a man in charge of a games company who has said he is "instilling a culture of “scepticism, pessimism, and fear” amongst the company’s staff based around the economic depression and an incentive program that rewards “profit and nothing else”."

When a man like that is in charge of a company with that much public awareness and that much money involved, the ideas can spread to other companies. It can spread to stockholders. It can spread, heaven forbid, into Blizzard. I'm not saying it has happened. I'm not even saying it will necessarily happen. I'm just saying that if you think it can't happen you really have no clue how the games industry works.

Let's just be happy Blizzard is doing status quo right now and hope that it stays that way for as long as humanly possible. Right now they and Valve are the only games companies who seem to actually care about integrity and games, and not just the bottom line.I like talking to you, we discuss things instead of debate things. It's also interesting as it seems we both have experience in the industry. Mine does involve direct interaction with Vivendi as well. *chuckles*

Anywho, I think we're pretty much on the same page at this point. There is a point where Sierra's reputation did go downhill slightly as the games they produced didn't have the same public response it used to have.. but the reputation that you reference is spot on. In short, they closed them down because no matter what happened in the past, they had issues in the present and there was a high risk ratio in the future. I've heard that from an accounting friend who got removed from that company. The information received was second hand. I wouldn't base that as fact, but it's what I'd consider above average speculation based on the knowledge they had.

But I digress. Onto Kotick... if Blizzard went south in a likewise manner, I completely agree that unsatisfyable decisions could be made. That's a "what if" scenario though. At this time, the signs point to success and I feel no need to stress on the conversation until things change.

Let's face it, there is nothing that you and I can do on a Starcraft Legacy forum other than discuss it. If we did do something, it would involve actions that are uninformed with lacking evidence and lacking information.

In short, while we may not like the information we're presented with about Senior Business Physco #1, we have no power at this time to do something efficiently. This is why I'm not stressing over it, the skies not falling yet and even if it were, I have to accept the fact that as an individual, I lack the tools to fix a problem that might not even exist yet. This is why I have the opinion/relaxed attitude on the subject I have. Even if all the worst speculation is "OMG TRUEZ!" right now... do I as an individual have any power whatsoever to fix it? Nope. I'd rather worry about diapers and scanning for SC2 info :)

[DemolitionSquid]

Right now they and Valve are the only games companies who seem to actually care about integrity and games, and not just the bottom line.

I just felt the need to add Bioware to that list.

[Cheesenium]

I really doubt that Kotick gonna leave Blizzard alone.From what he have done to IW,same thing will happen to Blizzard.This guy wants money,not quality games.He will squeeze every drop out of each developer.So,once Kotick is in Blizzard,SC2,D3 and WoW is gone.They are all screwed.

He or Microsoft have pretty much screw up Infinity Ward,as MW2 is an abomination now.No dedicated servers,IWNet(gawd,P2P for a FPS?),no modding,no free DLC and you have to pay through your nose for 3 maps are the main problems of this game.In short,the game have no reliable system for MP or you can say,no MP at all.Whats more,they charge a 60USD price tag on this piece of crap.

Plus,with their ridiculous attitude on the PC gamers with extreme lack of communications(even a delay rumor took 2 weeks for them to say something) and nothing is done for the lack of dedicated servers problem.

They dont even give a damn on the PC audience that made them famous.

I have never seen a company that treat their audience like shit.Seems like Kotick only want money from these people.

Hence,MW2 is the fail game of 2009.

I really hope SC2 is not affected by Kotick.And,hell no,im not gonna see SC2 as the fail game of the year 2010/2011.

[Norfindel]

I think that all opinions, whether I agree with them or not in the industry have a purpose. Kotick's purpose is to keep the stockholders going. What a "public" opinion when reading this is to immediately assume that the entire company will be moneygrubbing when that's not the case. Activision is a business first and foremost. Good games mean good business. Every producer at Activision (who is NOT a low man on the totem pole) that I've met are VERY passionate about the games they produce. My theory is, if the people who have their elbows deep in the games are passionate, THEY are the people who hold the industry's future... just because the man says that business comes first.. doesn't mean that he doesn't understand that good products sell more products. In this case, while I may percieve Kotick as the person who could be "evil"... he serves a purpose. He keeps the money going into the business so that those passionate individuals can make solid games.
This only assures that the current economic model is a bomb operated by a bunch of random asylum-grade madmen, waiting the right time to explode, and sink the humanity still deeper into the whirlpool of endless misery.

[Gifted]

@Demosquid: Bioware.. win. Agreed :)


I really doubt that Kotick gonna leave Blizzard alone.Do you have a source for that or is that purely your own speculation based on media articles that quote a few choice phrases
From what he have done to IW,same thing will happen to Blizzard.Two different scenarios. IW was a company that had a niche market that was shrinking. They attempted to get money out of it because unfortunately the truth is the company was going in the red. Blizzard is one of the VERY few companies that is nowhere near the red and has a business plan over the next few years to continue their success.
This guy wants money,not quality games.There is no reason to make them mutually exclusive. Good games make good money, good money allows more good games. Kotick is business minded, he knows that if another company has a plan that works wonders for money, changing that with the statistics at this time would make less money.
He will squeeze every drop out of each developer.So,once Kotick is in Blizzard,SC2,D3 and WoW is gone.They are all screwed.I believe this is purely false speculation rampantly fed by an increasing emotional pessimism. Look at it logically. Killing SC2, D3 and WoW would remove a LOT of money. This would be bad business. Keeping them going and keeping blizzard in the good means more money. There is NO REASON that "good business" and "good games" are not compatible. In fact, they are VERY compatible. Need I point out the slew of Activision games on the consoles that have won rewards while he's been in office? Whether you like or dislike them, it doesn't change the fact that they sell well, they have people who enjoy them well, and the industry celebrates their success.

Cheese, I want to say I see more emotional than logic in your opinion. There is nothing wrong with that... but I just want to state that a person who wants a business to succeed doesn't necessarily want to make poor decisions that would remove income. Good games sell, making good games makes good money. We don't even have any source stating how he actually runs the company.. only what he's said to the public. I understand MW2 is in a state you're not happy with, but that doesn't mean that they bastardize a game like Guitar Hero. Think logically about it and calm some emotions :)



This only assures that the current economic model is a bomb operated by a bunch of random asylum-grade madmen, waiting the right time to explode, and sink the humanity still deeper into the whirlpool of endless misery.Melodramatic, pessimistic and yet poetic all at the same time :)

The reason I disagree with small little stints like this is that it seems the intent is to find others who say "YES! You're right! This stinks!" but contributes no new information to the conversation. He is not insane or "asylum-grade". The only reason you see endless misery is that you choose not to look at the endless happiness that has to exist as a counterpoint.

We're talking about Kotick, not economic stability, Please stay on topic.

[Zero]

Do you have a source for that or is that purely your own speculation based on media articles that quote a few choice phrasesTwo different scenarios. IW was a company that had a niche market that was shrinking. They attempted to get money out of it because unfortunately the truth is the company was going in the red. Blizzard is one of the VERY few companies that is nowhere near the red and has a business plan over the next few years to continue their success.There is no reason to make them mutually exclusive. Good games make good money, good money allows more good games. Kotick is business minded, he knows that if another company has a plan that works wonders for money, changing that with the statistics at this time would make less money. I believe this is purely false speculation rampantly fed by an increasing emotional pessimism. Look at it logically. Killing SC2, D3 and WoW would remove a LOT of money. This would be bad business. Keeping them going and keeping blizzard in the good means more money. There is NO REASON that "good business" and "good games" are not compatible. In fact, they are VERY compatible. Need I point out the slew of Activision games on the consoles that have won rewards while he's been in office? Whether you like or dislike them, it doesn't change the fact that they sell well, they have people who enjoy them well, and the industry celebrates their success.

Very true. As big as StarCraft and WarCraft games are on the worldwide gaming competitions, if Kotick were to mess with Blizzard, and incur the wrath of everyone associated with it, he would lose an incredibly ridiculous amount of money. So business-wise, I agree that his money-grubbiness would prevent him from screwing with Blizzard, but you can't disagree that his bold words indicate that he's not the sharpest guy around and is prone to making really stupid mistakes.

[Gifted]

That depends on what you mean by the term "mistake". That's a term based on perception afterall. If he makes a decision that has a low short term gain but detriments the long term gain... some could view that as a mistake by some but a success by others. The gaming industry is a fickle one where the general public wants to hold onto ideals of passion instead of view it as a business model. It's not a bad thing to do that as well, as it has a high percentage of people who believe in the product they work on unlike other industries.

Maybe the largest mistake is that he opened his mouth... *shrugs* that's a common mistake for men with big egos, and he's in a position to justify that ego. But then again... if the shareholders confidence improved by him saying that, and that's more money to the company and more job security for it's individuals, that small "mistake" could come with some good benefits. It's about weighing pros and cons, not good or bad in my eyes. I'll agree that if I were in his position, I wouldn't place that public image of myself. It's not a mistake in my eyes, just something we'd do differently if placed with the choice.

Though the articles we have may paint him as not a sharp guy, we have to admit that he's the president of one of the biggest players in the industry... I don't believe I'm in a position to judge him by the small amount of irrelevant information provided. His actions in my eyes speak louder than his words. His company makes games from passionate developers. The games more often than not are of a high quality to the niche that they aim for. I don't care if he comes out of the closet and says "Nuke a gay whale for Christ!", if his company provides good products, I'll judge Activision (the company) by the products they create and the means which they create it. I already know many of the peopled there and know they're passionate and treated well. There is no such "fear" or "anxiety" around the office you don't find in any other game company. It's placed there by the passion of the individuals, not by the iron fist of a keiser president. And I'm content to say that I appreciate their work.

It's not like we're re-entering the Atari Game saturation era of the 80s these days. They aren't producing "ET"s or anything. I'm sure others may agree but that's my perception at least

FINAL DISCLAIMER: I'm not saying people shouldn't hold the same opinion as me, that's far from my point. If you guys want to storm Activision with pitchforks and torches, by all means. (Just avoid my brother on the way in, I love the guy)

[trace wm]

You people still think highly of Valve after how they've handled L4D/L4D2?

I love the Half-Lifes as much as anyone but my faith has been shaken just a tad.

[Norfindel]

Melodramatic, pessimistic and yet poetic all at the same time :)

The reason I disagree with small little stints like this is that it seems the intent is to find others who say "YES! You're right! This stinks!" but contributes no new information to the conversation. He is not insane or "asylum-grade". The only reason you see endless misery is that you choose not to look at the endless happiness that has to exist as a counterpoint.
I was talking more about the stockholders and the stock market, and how crazy is all that.


We're talking about Kotick, not economic stability, Please stay on topic.
But... we're in the offtopic lounge :)

[Xyvik]

You people still think highly of Valve after how they've handled L4D/L4D2?

I love the Half-Lifes as much as anyone but my faith has been shaken just a tad.

Oh geez, people are still on about that? Listen, even the main orchestrators of the boycott said they would stop. What happened with L4D2 is a lot of people who didn't understand what the plans were got angry that Valve, heaven forbid, should make a sequel less than five years after the original came out. Which is what could happen, and looks like has happened, with Blizzard

Kotick is, thankfully, in charge of Activision right now. Blizzard is a separate company. While I still stand by my opinion that his words could bleed into the corporate environment, so far it hasn't. Until we see direct proof of such corporate malpractice we should just avoid the products of the company we don't like.

I may not agree with Valve's long periods of making games, but hey, look what forums I'm in? The end result of Valve, (most*) Bioware, and (most*) Blizzard have been great games.


*For the record I did not enjoy Mass Effect and I have always detested WoW. Other than that, great track records.

[DemolitionSquid]

...For the record I did not enjoy Mass Effect...

I have lost all respect for you. You disgust me. Get out of my forum, heathen.

[trace wm]

Oh geez, people are still on about that? Listen, even the main orchestrators of the boycott said they would stop. What happened with L4D2 is a lot of people who didn't understand what the plans were got angry that Valve, heaven forbid, should make a sequel less than five years after the original came out. Which is what could happen, and looks like has happened, with Blizzard


I have no part of the boycott, I wasn't referring directly to it. I just think they took the sequel in the completely wrong direction. Nothing about the game interests me - which is a first for a Valve game.

[Xyvik]

I have lost all respect for you. You disgust me. Get out of my forum, heathen.

Let's see here...what did Mass Effect involve? Less character interaction than KOTOR (at least in Kotor I can actually talk to my squad members on a planet. In ME those kind of chats are relegated to aboard the ship.) A painfully cliched story that you can figure out within an hour of playing the game.

I didn't say I hated it, I just didn't enjoy it. It was touted as the next best Sci-Fi RPG and it didn't even have an interesting story. I did like some of the details of the universe it crafted, such as Krogans, and I did enjoy the combat, but overall it failed to impress me like a BioWare game should.

I'll be trying ME2, but I don't have very high hopes for it. Bioware let me down quite heavily and I haven't forgiven them for it...just yet.


And Trace: ah, understood. I was never truly interested in the whole series anyway, but it's technically being done by the team behind CS, not the "core" Half-Life Valve team. I don't really count it against them, just not my personal taste.

[DemolitionSquid]

Let's see here...what did Mass Effect involve? Less character interaction than KOTOR (at least in Kotor I can actually talk to my squad members on a planet. In ME those kind of chats are relegated to aboard the ship.) A painfully cliched story that you can figure out within an hour of playing the game.

I didn't say I hated it, I just didn't enjoy it. It was touted as the next best Sci-Fi RPG and it didn't even have an interesting story. I did like some of the details of the universe it crafted, such as Krogans, and I did enjoy the combat, but overall it failed to impress me like a BioWare game should.

I'll be trying ME2, but I don't have very high hopes for it. Bioware let me down quite heavily and I haven't forgiven them for it...just yet.

So you figured out after an hour that it was the Reapers who had built the mass relays? You didn't enjoy getting to make countless choices that dramatically impacted your story, like which of your squad lived or died, or to save the Rachni and hope it doesn't bit you in the ass?

The game was fantastic. Your standards are just impossibly high and irrational.

[Xyvik]

So you figured out after an hour that it was the Reapers who had built the mass relays? You didn't enjoy getting to make countless choices that dramatically impacted your story, like which of your squad lived or died, or to save the Rachni and hope it doesn't bit you in the ass?

Actually, yes, I did figure that out, as well as figuring out that the Citadel was a mass relay itself. I played the game expecting a great story and it wasn't there.
There are indeed parts of the game that I do enjoy, the choices and combat being part of it. But unless they come up with a better story in ME2...



Your standards are just impossibly high and irrational.

Yes. Yes they are. :cool: To be honest, I do not hate ME. It just wasn't as great as I was expecting it to be. I'm having more fun with the second-run through, though. But let me put it this way: With KOTOR I couldn't wait to get back in and try a Dark Side ending. With ME it didn't seem like it would be worth a second run-through to see what happens. Now that I'm actually going through it I'm enjoying it, I just don't consider it a masterpiece.

[Gifted]

I was talking more about the stockholders and the stock market, and how crazy is all that.


But... we're in the offtopic lounge :)Thanks for elaborating, and about the topic situation, that's logic I can't fight, good sir :) /salute

Regarding Mass Effect: I haven't played it yet and probably spoiled a few things here. My bad :( Anywho, I'm not surprised that Xyrik caught some of the spoilers early on. It's weird, I've been a hardcore gamer since my early youth but since my time working in the industry and what I've learned about story dynamics and planning, it's hard to find a story that's unpredictable for me.

It only makes the more unique storylines that much better though :)

[Xyvik]

Lol sorry for the spoilers my good sir.

I really don't have anything against Mass Effect, it just wasn't my favorite offering by them. It didn't help matters that it was available for a console first and I had to wait for it on my PC. That irked.

Oh well. What was the topic again?

[Gifted]

We were talking about an asshole or something...

[newcomplex]

Bob is an asshole, but you guys don't get what he means.

Game developers often fail to utilize efficient if mechanical, soulless and boring devices such as QA (quality assurance). Sometimes, they get so stuck in their own asses to realize their making a unprofitable game.

His entire point is that the game industry isn't unlike any other industry. Devs need to get a positive bottom line worth the investment and time.

Nothing he said is new, and nothing he said is going to be detrimental to the industry. Every other corporate head who hasn't played a game in twenty years, probably including blizzard CEO's think on similar lines.

Heres the asshat part. Bobby knew what kind of impression his words were going to have on the gaming community. He also knew that it wouldn't harm his company. Every other exec pretends to care. Bob doesn't even care enough to pretend. He doesn't care what in his mind, a bunch of trolls and basement dwelling nerds think. That conceit is the only thing hes guilty of.

[Blazur]

You people still think highly of Valve after how they've handled L4D/L4D2?

I love the Half-Lifes as much as anyone but my faith has been shaken just a tad.

L4D2 is the first time I've ever lost respect for VALVe. I still love the company, but the way they managed this franchise is very unlike them.

[Gifted]

Bob is an asshole, but you guys don't get what he means.

Game developers often fail to utilize efficient if mechanical, soulless and boring devices such as QA (quality assurance). Sometimes, they get so stuck in their own asses to realize their making a unprofitable game.

His entire point is that the game industry isn't unlike any other industry. Devs need to get a positive bottom line worth the investment and time.

Nothing he said is new, and nothing he said is going to be detrimental to the industry. Every other corporate head who hasn't played a game in twenty years, probably including blizzard CEO's think on similar lines.

Heres the asshat part. Bobby knew what kind of impression his words were going to have on the gaming community. He also knew that it wouldn't harm his company. Every other exec pretends to care. Bob doesn't even care enough to pretend. He doesn't care what in his mind, a bunch of trolls and basement dwelling nerds think. That conceit is the only thing hes guilty of.New complex, um... I know my posts can be large, but I know I've touched on many of these subjects multiple times :)

The problem isn't that Kotick is doing anything "good" or "evil" in my eyes. In fact, by removing those aspects, it's always been my side to say that there is no problem. However, you did pull out a large generality to say that all CEOs "pretend to care". By nature of the industry, game design is the one exception where CEOs can care quite a lot about the products they design by the average nature of how they got there. Some got there in terms of business decision, but if you look at Blizzard's for example.. he started out as a codemonkey in a building writing code, eating pizza and getting sleep deprivation as many of the other individuals along side him.

Going back on subject.. as you said, there is nothing wrong with him saying what he said. Games will still sell as long as they produce good games. This doesn't change the fact that what he says will have the general gamer population perceive him poorly based on what he said. It also doesn't change the fact that the typical person investing into Activision from a pure business standpoint will perceive these words as a sign of a productive business.

[spychi]

Valve, Bioware, Blizzard are the CO's you can trust (however because of l4d2 valve lost in my eyes)
Mass Effect is great
Kotick is an asshole and he needs to stay away from gaming, I would still kick his freckled face to blood
Acti will have no influence on Blizz, perm
EA is better than Acti
Battlefield: 1943 (bestseller), Bad Company 2 (looks great), Dante's Inferno (God of War like game with it's own story), Dead Space (best horror of the decade with fun new mechanics like zero-G), also they take under their wings CO's like Bioware, which is not a bad aspect if you consider them only as producers of great games like Mass Effect

[DemolitionSquid]

I agree that Valve, Bioware, and Blizzard are the best game developers right now. But their higher offices are a bit too scummy.

[Pandonetho]

Forgive my lack of knowledge on L4D2, but what is everyone giving it such a hard time about?

I played L4D1 and I thought it was superb.

[DemolitionSquid]

Forgive my lack of knowledge on L4D2, but what is everyone giving it such a hard time about?

I played L4D1 and I thought it was superb.

The argument is that Valve somehow "promised" lots of down-loadable content for L4D. Instead, they announced L4D2 a year after L4D was released. People got angry they'd have to pay full price for what should have been cheap expansion content. Valve responded by saying that they added so much stuff to L4D2 that it was almost like a completely new game anyway.

[Pandonetho]

Oh I see, thanks. Sounds just like the people bashing the trilogy.

[DemolitionSquid]

Oh I see, thanks. Sounds just like the people bashing the trilogy.

Welcome to economics. Supply, and demand.

[sandwich_bird]

I have to agree with the people against L4D2. L4D is good but god I wouldn't pay the full price for a game that only have 4 campaign that don't last that long. This is completely retarded. For this price you can buy I don't know Fallout 3 and have so much more for your money. If they would have made more downloadable content the game would have been fine and well worth the money but now they're pulling this L4D2 crap. No thx.

[Xyvik]

I have to agree with the people against L4D2. L4D is good but god I wouldn't pay the full price for a game that only have 4 campaign that don't last that long. This is completely retarded. For this price you can buy I don't know Fallout 3 and have so much more for your money. If they would have made more downloadable content the game would have been fine and well worth the money but now they're pulling this L4D2 crap. No thx.

See, this is exactly what I don't get about the anti-L4D2 faction. Allow me to see if I can understand it.

Fallout 3, to use your example, cost $50 at startup. I don't know how much the DLCs cost when they first came out, but right now you can buy 2 2-packs for a total combined price of $40.

By all accounts the DLCs didn't actually include all that much new stuff in them. By all accounts L4D2 is even bigger than L4D1, with 4 full campaigns, five new "uncommon" zombies, three (or was it 4?) brand new zombie heroes, a slew of new melee weapons, completely new and upgraded models for all players AND zombies, an updated Director that completely changes the levels even MORE than the last time around, including weather and time of day...

It is essentially a giant DLC pack all rolled into one. If Valve had released it as such nobody would have raised an eyebrow. But they tout it as a sequel, which it rightly is as big as one (and larger than many sequels I've seen) and people suddenly think this is a bad thing?

Am I missing something here?

[DemolitionSquid]

Am I missing something here?

Only one thing.

The person can be smart.
People... well, people are stupid.

[Pandonetho]

What's so great about fallout 3 anyway? I played it, beat it, felt disappointed to be honest.

[Xyvik]

What's so great about fallout 3 anyway? I played it, beat it, felt disappointed to be honest.

I have to agree with this, actually. I enjoyed it, but it reminded me too much of Oblivion: it's great for the first week/two weeks until you realize that there's not a whole lot going on under the surface.

To be perfectly honest I enjoyed Stalker a heck of a lot more than I enjoyed Fallout. Stalker had more atmosphere and pure scare factor and it just felt more real than Fallout 3 ever did. Oh, and I hated starting the game as a child. Why can't developers put their tutorials outside of their games instead of wasting a good hour of our lives?


Only one thing.

The person can be smart.
People... well, people are stupid.

Ah, how true. To put it in one of my favorite ways:


A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

[Gifted]

http://richardrowan.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/idiocy_1.jpg

[sandwich_bird]

See, this is exactly what I don't get about the anti-L4D2 faction. Allow me to see if I can understand it.

Fallout 3, to use your example, cost $50 at startup. I don't know how much the DLCs cost when they first came out, but right now you can buy 2 2-packs for a total combined price of $40.

By all accounts the DLCs didn't actually include all that much new stuff in them. By all accounts L4D2 is even bigger than L4D1, with 4 full campaigns, five new "uncommon" zombies, three (or was it 4?) brand new zombie heroes, a slew of new melee weapons, completely new and upgraded models for all players AND zombies, an updated Director that completely changes the levels even MORE than the last time around, including weather and time of day...

It is essentially a giant DLC pack all rolled into one. If Valve had released it as such nobody would have raised an eyebrow. But they tout it as a sequel, which it rightly is as big as one (and larger than many sequels I've seen) and people suddenly think this is a bad thing?

Am I missing something here?No I meant Fallout 3 without the DLC(DLC that cost are really a bitch trend) has more value than L4D and L4D2 combined. My point is not that they should have released 12 DLC for 20$ each instead of a sequel but that they should have made more content from the start. Since they didn't, they could have supported the game with free DLC like their frist one(which added survival and versus mode to 2 more campaign, once again something that should have been there from the start), the crash course campaign or like what they did with Call of Duty world at war and their free map packs. Instead, they make another game with the same value as the first one and will make us pay the full price for it once again. This game will sell because the REAL idiots will buy it and by doing so, will tell Valve that they can charge the same price as a great game for an unfinished one.

Obviously this argument doesn't stand for SC2 like someone tried to say in the thread. WOL will be a full game from the start and will be worth way more than L4D + L4D2 + L4d3 combined and so saying that SC2 trilogy is a way to milk the franchise is stupid.

[Xyvik]

Your logic is kinda circular. If you don't like L4D1 then why are you even worried about L4D2? I'm not a big fan of L4D myself, but that doesn't mean I go around accusing Valve of being irresponsible.

The L4D2 BoyCott Reality (http://www.gamerevolution.com/blog/entry.php?id=84653)

Might want to take a look at this.

[sandwich_bird]

Your logic is kinda circular. If you don't like L4D1 then why are you even worried about L4D2? I'm not a big fan of L4D myself, but that doesn't mean I go around accusing Valve of being irresponsible.

The L4D2 BoyCott Reality (http://www.gamerevolution.com/blog/entry.php?id=84653)

Might want to take a look at this. I liked L4D1, I just hate the fact that the game lacked so much content.

About this article:


By September, Valve personally invited the group founders to their headquarters and let them play test Left 4 Dead 2. When the group leaders came back, they reported that the sequel was actually coming along well and felt very improved over the first game and had also announced that Valve had more DLC planned beyond Crash Course. L4D2 is coming out in 2 weeks. Even if they make more DLC for L4D1, why would you even want it when you have L4D2? It's too late at this point.

[Xyvik]

But if you don't want to shell out the bucks for L4D2 you still get additional content for L4D1.

I'm really not trying to be argumentative here, I really don't enjoy arguing. I'm seriously just attempting to figure out where you're coming from. I mean, technically Valve nor any other company owe us anything for free, and yet they've done just that for TF2 and L4D1. What does L4D2 do to disrupt that? I seem to recall reading somewhere that there were technical reasons the content in L4D2 couldn't have been included in DLCs, most notably the Director 2.0.

I'm not trying to sway you here, just trying to understand.

[newcomplex]

I liked L4D1, I just hate the fact that the game lacked so much content.

About this article:

L4D2 is coming out in 2 weeks. Even if they make more DLC for L4D1, why would you even want it when you have L4D2? It's too late at this point.

If it lacks content, then do not buy it. The funny part is, valve is even delivering on their promise of free content above and beyond what most companies support, even as the sequel is being released, while releasing a sequel that people will buy because...logically...they want to play it.

What are they doing wrong here? Keeping their promise? Releasing free content? Or releasing a sequel that people want to play?