Kotick is an asshole

[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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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