Chelsea "Nintendoll"
Editorial, Rant Saturday, November 7th 2009

12 Comments

A few weeks ago, Gamasutra news director Leigh Alexander wrote at length about Activision’s CEO Bobby Kotick, who she believes to be the industry’s newest punching bag. After the comments he made in September’s Deutsche Bank Securities Technology Conference in San Francisco such as his intentions “to take all the fun out of making video games,” it’s not hard to see why. Alexander asks a question that others thought not to ask: Should we really hate Bobby Kotick, who wishes to “exploit” IP for their sequels, and therefore capital investment, potential?

Why yes, we should.

Alexander somehow manages to shoot down her own argument before even stating what it is in one of the first non-introductory paragraphs:

I, as a games biz reporter, have been given interview time with most major publishing execs more than once – most of them believe it’s important to reach out to us from time to time as a way of reaching their consumers. I’ve never even been in the same room with Mr. Kotick. And while Activision is often responsive to media inquiries regarding its games, calls for comment on business articles or questions about the company itself – such as my request for info for this article – usually go unanswered.

Read this paragraph carefully—do you see what she’s done? She says that she has spent time with other game industry execs because they feel to the need to reach out to media outlets in order to communicate with their consumers (however indirectly). She then goes on to say that this has never happened with Bobby Kotick and her requests to Activision usually go unanswered. While this certainly isn’t the strongest of signs that Kotick could not care less who hands him their money, it does strike me as correlating quite well with the business-minded persona he has been displaying.

Alexander references numerous sources in her article who all claim that most of Kotick’s more notorious quotes such as “If it was left to me, I would raise prices even further,” were simply jokes, however tactless. Michael Pachter, along with various other anonymous employee sources all claim that the things that Kotick has said are being taken out of context and were meant to be humorous, not degrading or insulting. He claims that Kotick is a friendly, outgoing and overall nice guy, and Pachter likes him a lot. Aww, how sweet.

Of course Kotick is nice to people like Michael Pachter, and even to some degree his employees; part of being a good businessperson is also being a good politician. Pachter is an important figure in the industry, and it is in Kotick’s best interest to be friends with him. As a game blogger, I would never be an ass to a developer or a PR contact, even if I hated them personally or didn’t enjoy their game. Personal morals aside, it’s unprofessional and bad for business.

So another question must be asked: if these off-color statements are meant as jokes, why isn’t Kotick trying to set the record straight? You’d think if he was so grossly misinterpreted, that he would want to clear up misconceptions to put the people he ultimately works for, the videogame consumer, more at ease. Yet there have been no statements from Kotick or even Activision PR. The silence can be interpreted in a number of ways, but it is my personal opinion that it is out of indifference. Kotick is a man who never once seemed to care about the face of his consumer base; as long as he gets paid his $14M a year and stocks are high, he couldn’t give a shit who’s handing him the money, as long as there’s plenty of it.

If these statements were meant only in jest, why are employees of the company so desperate to remain anonymous? Isn’t it a little weird that someone would remain anonymous when describing Activision as a company who “treats them well”? Here, things get a little foggy.

Alexander actually says the “culture of achievement… means that prominent designers on projects like these drive very, very nice cars, we’re told.” So, it’s completely OK to limit creative freedom and possibly push employees to work overtime in order to hit a deadline, just because the end result will allow them to buy nice things? It’s a pretty messed up society we live in where one assumes that good pay makes up for whatever working conditions employees might have to deal with. I don’t work at Activision, but neither does Alexander. It is unfair for either of us to assume we could possibly know what it’s like to work for a big name publisher like Activision. Whether or not the employees are treated well is a mystery, but unlike Alexander I don’t believe that a big fat paycheck means that things are good.

The next section talks about Activision’s legal moves against other studios, such as the recent lawsuit against EA for picking up Brütal Legend after Activision dropped it for not being enough of a potential cash cow. I actually don’t even have to argue with Alexander here—she doesn’t bother trying to prove that these actions weren’t spurred for selfish, monetary reasons. One could argue that these actions were carried out not necessarily by Kotick himself, but by a legal division within Activision. While Kotick might not have personally been involved with the Brütal Legend or Scratch: The Ultimate DJ lawsuits, he certainly must have been aware of them, possibly even greenlighting the legal action (since after all, he is the company’s CEO).

The article ends with the age-old excuse of: “Well, Bobby Kotick is a businessman, and selling videogames IS a business.” This is unacceptable. “Good business” does not constitute making statements about price-gouging your consumer base, only to laugh and say “just kidding!” What kind of a joke is that? Alexander herself even wrote at the beginning of the article that EA had similar unsavory public statements and business practices of cranking out shitty sequels and was forced to change their business strategy:

“Hating EA is so last year,” CEO John Riccitiello told Kotaku at E3 in 2008, talking to us about what Electronic Arts had learned from its old ways of doing business – ways that look an awful lot like how Activision appears to conduct itself these days.

The conclusion is a quote from industry analyst Michael Pachter, who “concedes” that EA’s poor treatment of both their IPs and their audience came back to bite them in the ass. People might think popular opinion means nothing; maybe they’re right. But not listening to your consumer, especially their wants and needs when buying a product, is not a good business move at all. Activision is doing well because they are milking the life force out of many series such as Guitar Hero with sequels and track packs. But people are slowly starting to see the difference in quality of Guitar Hero games and Rock Band games: Harmonix is a developer that actually gives a shit about both music and their fan base, while Kotick is more concerned with profit margins. I’d like to think that as a group, gamers crave more than mere sequels; I also think this will become more obvious in the coming years when other developers are publishing new and exciting IPs while Activision is still attempting to pump out copies of the same game with different color box art and a few new features.

Overall, Alexander means well in trying to give a different perspective on Bobby Kotick. She  tries to convince her audience that Kotick might not be a bad person, despite the fact that she has never even met him. Halfway through she seems to forget that her platform was to convince people he isn’t worth hating, and concludes that it doesn’t matter if gamers like him or not because everyone’s going to go out and buy Modern Warfare 2 anyway. While she explains “Why We Love to Hate Activision,” the “And Might Be Wrong” half seems to have been completely forgotten during the writing process.  Maybe it’s just a little too difficult to defend the outspoken and seemingly indifferent CEO.

I hope that Pachter’s predictions prove to be correct and that Activision will eventually suffer financially for their outright disregard of their own consumers. Bobby Kotick deserves the flak he’s getting. Considering his disregard for humility and slavish devotion to profits and shareholders, I don’t think he will warrant any pity if the company begins to tank. He is a businessman and as long as he gets his money, he couldn’t care less about anything else. This is not the type of man that I want leading one of the largest gaming companies into the future.

Prove you are not a selfish, single-minded human being, Bobby Kotick. I’m waiting.