|
Honestly, I can't really blame Mr. Kotick for how he handles his business, but I do think he is quite short sighted and that he doesn't realize that gamers act more like a fandom and community, watching development and progression of the central part of the 'fandom' (IE, developers and publishers of video games) as opposed to people who just go out and buy... I don't know, things like laundry powder because they need it, it works and couldn't give a damn how it's made or how the companies involved are treated.
I don't think Bobby Kotick actually understands that about video game players. We're not apathetic consumer drones, we're much like any other fandom, perfect example would be something like the Star Wars or Star Trek fandoms. Yes, they go out and purchase tickets to Star Wars/Trek movies, apparel, video games and the like making them consumers, but if something is done which degrades the quality of the focus of the fandom, such as say an utterly horrendous movie, the fandom will communicate with each other and likely will publicly denouce it. The same holds true with Video Gamers. We're not as tight knit as other fandoms, but we are still a losely held community with one thing in common: We like our video games.
So naturally, when you get an uninformed CEO taking over one of the biggest, most central corperations in the industry without aclimatizing to how things are done, he's going to ruffle some serious feathers. I can't fault him or bash on his business practices when it comes down to it, I begrudgingly admit he's good at his job and his first and foremost priority is to please his investors and shareholders, which he does a fine job of doing. However, I will say that his handling of certain particular cases such as the Infinity Ward case over Modern Warfare 2 aren't acceptable and he needs to answer for his actions in such cases in civil court.
TL;DR version: He's doing his job, but he needs to be more in tune with his consumer base because they are closer to a fandom than a bunch of apathetic consumers, meaning we are carefully watching everything he is doing.
|
The one thing CEO's of large publishing/development Empires in this industry needs to watch for is their client base to begin with. Gamers are a large, connected group that is largly vocal and will call you on BS when we see it.
Granted, the CoD/Madden portion (their core, I would assume) isn't this way, but with Blizzard and their IP's, it is this way, and can and would bring down an empire.
Though I can imagine that Morhime largely tells Kotick to go suck an egg.
|
It seems that Blizzard sold their soul to the devil. That Kottick guy sounds like a total arsehole.
|
As a call of duty fan, I know all too well the great deeds of one Bobby Kotick. If I could put a face on greed and deception in this country it would be Mr. Kotick. Its not enough to have 5 million dollar mansion and 10 cars, he wants a 50 million dollar mansion and 100 cars!
As the CEO of a corporation, Bobby Kotick is legally required to maximize profits for his company. Allow me to repeat that: legally required. As in, the board of directors can sue him if he doesn't.
Obviously, CEOs are allowed various leeway on their choice of tactics for maximizing profits. But this nonsensical BS about wanting "a 50 million dollar mansion and 100 cars" is exactly that: BS.
am I really wrong in saying that having 2 units that fulfill a similar role would still be great and not make the game feel too bloated?
Well, Reapers are essentially unused because Hellions can do pretty much what Reapers can do. If you have two units that do the same thing, the better one will be used preferentially.
In SC1, Scouts and Corsairs had the same function: killing air units. But since Scouts sucked at it, and Corsairs were awesome, people built Corsairs and Scouts were one of the least used units ever.
Remember: in SC1, they had about as many units as SC2, but quite a few of them were unused or used so rarely as to be essentially nonexistent. The Queens Nest was nothing more than something to take up space between a Lair and a Hive.
There is a certain limit to the number of possible units you can have that have unique roles and specific reasons for existence. If you gave each race 20 units, players would still just use 5-8 of them. Which ever units were the best would be used and the rest would be ignored.
However, I will say that his handling of certain particular cases such as the Infinity Ward case over Modern Warfare 2 aren't acceptable and he needs to answer for his actions in such cases in civil court.
And what in particular was so bad about the Infinity Ward thing?
As I understand it, the rift started when Activision did something entirely reasonable. Activision wants to do the whole "yearly exploitation of franchises" thing. However, IW can't crank out a CoD game every year. So Activision decided to spread the license around. IW would get a CoD game every two years, and another Activision studio would fill in the gaps.
This timeshare arrangement makes a lot of sense. Each development studio on the CoD license would get actual time to make a quality game. The usual problem with the whole "yearly exploitation of franchises" thing is that a year isn't long enough to make a quality game, so you wind up with yearly crap. Giving each studio two years would allow quality to be maintained while keeping up the yearly flow of titles.
But Infinity Ward didn't like that. Rather than being adults about the situation, they childishly did everything they could to keep Activision from doing this. Eventually, the IW studio heads got fed up and wanted to jump ship. And that's when Activision started pulling their own shenanigans.
|
I feel sorry of this, I feel ashamed really, I can't believe in what the "Bussines" has become ):!
|
On March 13 2011 10:13 NicolBolas wrote:
And what in particular was so bad about the Infinity Ward thing?
As I understand it, the rift started when Activision did something entirely reasonable. Activision wants to do the whole "yearly exploitation of franchises" thing. However, IW can't crank out a CoD game every year. So Activision decided to spread the license around. IW would get a CoD game every two years, and another Activision studio would fill in the gaps.
This timeshare arrangement makes a lot of sense. Each development studio on the CoD license would get actual time to make a quality game. The usual problem with the whole "yearly exploitation of franchises" thing is that a year isn't long enough to make a quality game, so you wind up with yearly crap. Giving each studio two years would allow quality to be maintained while keeping up the yearly flow of titles.
But Infinity Ward didn't like that. Rather than being adults about the situation, they childishly did everything they could to keep Activision from doing this. Eventually, the IW studio heads got fed up and wanted to jump ship. And that's when Activision started pulling their own shenanigans.
Developers don't like it when their baby gets loaned around. For example, one of the main reasons Bungie left microsoft was Halo Wars. Bungie felt very uncomfortable about having their IP being used without their control. So while Activision was allowed legally to do what they did, it doesn't make it any less rude and creates unneeded friction between the studio and the publisher.
|
On March 13 2011 10:13 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +As a call of duty fan, I know all too well the great deeds of one Bobby Kotick. If I could put a face on greed and deception in this country it would be Mr. Kotick. Its not enough to have 5 million dollar mansion and 10 cars, he wants a 50 million dollar mansion and 100 cars! As the CEO of a corporation, Bobby Kotick is legally required to maximize profits for his company. Allow me to repeat that: legally required. As in, the board of directors can sue him if he doesn't. Obviously, CEOs are allowed various leeway on their choice of tactics for maximizing profits. But this nonsensical BS about wanting "a 50 million dollar mansion and 100 cars" is exactly that: BS.
Look at what he's saying though. Up until "September 15, 2009" in OP I was thinking that it wasn't so bad. Honestly it wouldn't suprise me if a creative industry like gaming could use some restrictions.
But looking at what he's saying everything points towards efficiency = mass production = profit. Such a standpoint would really worry me if I considered buying stock in the company. A corporate culture like that doesn't mean that Kotick wants more cars, but the cars part does highlight the same stereotype that he seems to abide by.
And I expect to find out that people have said stupid things and that things can be taken out of context... but this is just too much.
Anyway.. I guess he will run the company in the ground or get fired sooner or later. I just hope SC2 doesn't get too affected by everything.
|
|
|
lol if HotS doesnt have any new units i m not buying it at all whatz the point
|
damn. i just now read this. i feel robbed. big money taking away creativity, and why are they able to? because there's a trillion billion buyers out there who don't even stop to think what power they have and execute when making a game purchase. this is why i only buy one game every 3 months or so.
every game you buy needs to be a quality decision, because you may just be giving the asshole who is laying off your favourite subdeveloper's studio some more money to justify his cause because the numbers say he's right in doing asshole management.
|
As an avid player of starcraft, I really wish that this was stickied. This actually came up on the bnet forums, and since most people avoid it like the plague, I'd like to ask that this be stickied somewhere. Why?
People argue, either intuitively or with some prior knowledge or feelings on the method of business, about whether HoTS and subsequent games will be any good or should not be bought. People also continue to discuss balance. Bobby Kotick Has here, clearly defined, the reasons a game will be a carrot and stick, and why some things such as balance issues may take a while to be addressed. I told people in TL chat in sc2 that Blizzard is owned by Acti and has to do as Acti wants if Acti decides to pull rank on any subject within, and people just didn't seem to believe it. There was recently a blog about the MW3 series and how its basically the same game repackaged over and over with little to nothing new and worthwhile about it, that they are basically expansions priced as full fledged games.
What the author did not make mention of is that SC2 is basically owned by the same people who made the same deicisions. If we read this blog, we can clearly see that BK has a list of demands on how to produce and deploy products that clearly shows int he CoD series. Break it down into parts, make people pay more for the full game.
I think it's important for people to be aware of this level of control over the product when considering why and how Sc2 changes, and is released to the general public.
Please sticky?
|
I am actually shocked reading this. I truly hope every member of team liquid reads this and gains a general understanding of the incentives and motivations felt by people running activision-blizzard, or any corporation for that matter.
This is a great example of management misunderstanding their market.
|
On December 19 2011 07:12 Humanfails wrote:As an avid player of starcraft, I really wish that this was stickied. This actually came up on the bnet forums, and since most people avoid it like the plague, I'd like to ask that this be stickied somewhere. Why? People argue, either intuitively or with some prior knowledge or feelings on the method of business, about whether HoTS and subsequent games will be any good or should not be bought. People also continue to discuss balance. Bobby Kotick Has here, clearly defined, the reasons a game will be a carrot and stick, and why some things such as balance issues may take a while to be addressed. I told people in TL chat in sc2 that Blizzard is owned by Acti and has to do as Acti wants if Acti decides to pull rank on any subject within, and people just didn't seem to believe it. There was recently a blog about the MW3 series and how its basically the same game repackaged over and over with little to nothing new and worthwhile about it, that they are basically expansions priced as full fledged games. What the author did not make mention of is that SC2 is basically owned by the same people who made the same deicisions. If we read this blog, we can clearly see that BK has a list of demands on how to produce and deploy products that clearly shows int he CoD series. Break it down into parts, make people pay more for the full game. I think it's important for people to be aware of this level of control over the product when considering why and how Sc2 changes, and is released to the general public. Please sticky?
I think you missed this :
The views expressed by this thread are not the official views of TeamLiquid.net and its staff. This is a forum thread and not official news.
Why would they sticky this thread?
|
763 Posts
Blizzard just does as Blizzard has always done. Blizzard set out on this path long before Activision became involved, only back then it was explained as "Blizzard is stupid." and now ActiVision is a convenient scapegoat. Not that I like Activision at all, I don't, I'm really not a fan of the vast majority of their games. CoD for instance bores me to tears. About a year after the merger first happened, and after a lot of things were blamed on Activision there was an interview with one of the Blizzard employees that's probably still on YouTube where they said they haven't heard or seen anything from Activision and Activision just kind of lets them do their own thing because they know what they're doing.
Yes Activision most definitely could pull rank on Blizzard at some point and screw everything up, but they haven't yet, and as long as Blizzard continues to do well without outside influence Activision really doesn't have any reason to intervene. I'd very much like to say that Activision is at fault for anything I don't like in Blizzard games, but I know better than that. It's just Blizzard being Blizzard, sadly. Believe me, SC2 hasn't gotten the COD treatment yet, and if it does it'll be pretty frickin horrible.
|
It kills me that I absolutely love Blizzard and ALL of their games since the late 90s and yet their profits go to the one man I hate. I really really really really really really really really really despise Bobby Kotick with a burning passion
|
The funniest thing to me about the OP is all the attention paid to stuff like Paid Name Changes and "Premium" user maps with only a portion going to the map makers as though it was only a matter of time before Bobby Kotick personally charged you 5 cents for every ladder game.
Oh wait, it turns out that even when half of r/starcraft seems to be screaming for paid name changes, Blizzard hasn't added them. There's also no map market. I can't think of any additional charges to be found in SC2 - you paid for Wings of Liberty, you got the whole game.
Kotick's an ass and everything for sure but a year on from release any reasonable belief that he had or maintains major plans to force Blizzard to suck their customers dry must be accompanied by relief that he has been fantastically inefficient at executing them.
(either that or people should stop being so paranoid).
|
Wow, I remember reading this years ago. Did people really have to bump it? its some facts with a lot of speculations and fearmongering.
I mean, we should be aware of this but OP seemed really paranoid about stuff lol its not nearly as bad as people say.
|
On December 19 2011 12:54 windsupernova wrote:
Wow, I remember reading this years ago. Did people really have to bump it? its some facts with a lot of speculations and fearmongering.
I mean, we should be aware of this but OP seemed really paranoid about stuff lol its not nearly as bad as people say.
Speculation?The guy even dug out the sources dude.
|
On December 19 2011 11:53 Roggay wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2011 07:12 Humanfails wrote:As an avid player of starcraft, I really wish that this was stickied. This actually came up on the bnet forums, and since most people avoid it like the plague, I'd like to ask that this be stickied somewhere. Why? People argue, either intuitively or with some prior knowledge or feelings on the method of business, about whether HoTS and subsequent games will be any good or should not be bought. People also continue to discuss balance. Bobby Kotick Has here, clearly defined, the reasons a game will be a carrot and stick, and why some things such as balance issues may take a while to be addressed. I told people in TL chat in sc2 that Blizzard is owned by Acti and has to do as Acti wants if Acti decides to pull rank on any subject within, and people just didn't seem to believe it. There was recently a blog about the MW3 series and how its basically the same game repackaged over and over with little to nothing new and worthwhile about it, that they are basically expansions priced as full fledged games. What the author did not make mention of is that SC2 is basically owned by the same people who made the same deicisions. If we read this blog, we can clearly see that BK has a list of demands on how to produce and deploy products that clearly shows int he CoD series. Break it down into parts, make people pay more for the full game. I think it's important for people to be aware of this level of control over the product when considering why and how Sc2 changes, and is released to the general public. Please sticky? I think you missed this : The views expressed by this thread are not the official views of TeamLiquid.net and its staff. This is a forum thread and not official news.Why would they sticky this thread?
Stickies are for important and very influential information that people should know about. Even a sticky does not have to be conforming to the personal beliefs or views of the TL staff or TL.net.
That does not mean that individuals don't need to know what Kotick actually and factually professes and believes. It also has a bearing on a lot of threads that have since been opened as to "Is HoTS worth buying", etc. If this thread was stickied people could decide this for themselves without opening a new thread, based on more evidence than zero. This is something I would want to know about if I were someone who didn't already know. It's important. Firing all the people that work in a company right before splitting profits? Think about it. that means new people have to be brought in to work on things. This affects how games like sc2 and CoD are made, marketed, and released. It affects the quality. Teamliquid's main source of users ciome here for starcraft. Therefore TL does have a stake in putting this out there because it affects starcraft very directly.
The question is why would you not sticky it, and let a thread die that could answer a lot of questions that other people will create threads for in the future? Remember, sc2 is 3 games, so people will have the HoTs threads again with LoTV.
|
This guy makes me sick. Why the hell did blizzard join up with this...thing.
Someone better develop an open-souce starcraft like game because Im sure as hell not buying sc3 if things are heading this direction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
