Do you hate Activision, or just Bobby Kotick?

There's a lot of hate for Activision these days. But is it really the company that people hate? Or is it just Bobby Kotick; the poster boy for Activision that people hate? After all, he does want to take all of the fun out of gaming. The grudge I have against Activison is that they keep him around. $15.00 maps packs for Modern Warfare 2? I could be wrong, but I figure that was Kotick's doing.

Kotick = 100% hate

Activision = 50%

Lol, I keep my mind open, but Kotick has said and done some really dumb stuff, in addition to CoD being awful and milked to hell.

I think they are just the new company that is easy to hate on because they became such a money power in the last few years...

they own Blizzard, Starcraft, and Call of Duty...its tough for any company to compete with that...

It used to be EA to hate on in the last generation because they dominated in Sports and FPS games...

Bobby Kotick. So long as he's in charge, I don't buy any Activision games (or Blizzard games, for that matter). Since he represents the company, he kinda makes them look bad with his antics.

I'll be honest, I've only heard the name being tossed around here, but I don't know his background story, Can someone fill me in on this guy and why he is really hated by so many or...allegiedly hated I should say?

Hate is only a word that should be thrown around if someone has done something evil towards your family.

While I slightly have a dislike for Activision, From what I have read in regarding qoutes from Kotick, I just find him to be a moron of the video games industry

Kotick. I'm hoping when he retires (Or hopefully dies) Activision will go through changes similar to what happened to EA a few years back.

i hate both

Activision has some decent games. So, I don't dislike the company's games.

I hate what they have become but I don't hate all of the developers, nor do I point the blame at one man the blame lies with Vivendi who bought Activision and Blizzard. Hard to hate them when GoldenEye has turned out so well :P also I here a few people here and there seem to like the new call of duty game... who knew.

The problem is, Kotick's administration guides the work of those talented individuals, so they are effected by his stupidity as well. Though, he is an astonishing business man. Unfortunately, a CEO being a good business man doesn't make me interested in playing the games his company makes. If anything, it deters me from even associating myself with them, whether I pay for them or not (unlike a lot of people, I refuse to play games when I boycott them, not just refuse to pay for them).

they own Blizzard, Starcraft, and Call of Duty...its tough for any company to compete with that...NodakJo2010

Activision does not own Blizzard. They are two seperate entities both owned by Vivendi.

As long as he heads the company, Bobby Kotick is Activision. It was his idea to only greenlight games that could be "exploited on an annual basis" (an exact quote). The company follows through on his decisions. There is no seperating the two. EA deserved all the hate it got under Larry Probst, but Ricitello managed to clean up the company image in the past few years. Maybe someone, someday will do the same for Activision.

I would boycott Activision, but they only release garbage so there's nothing to boycott (haven't played or wanted an Activision-published game since the original Call of Duty).

Also, didn't Kotick actually say that he wanted to "Take the fun out of making games"?

I mean... wtf? It kind of sounds like something a cartoon super villain would aspire to do.

I think some of the outrage is questionable, at best. Somebody in this thread mentions the maps in Modern Warfare 2, where you payed $15 for 5 maps. I want to call shenanigans on that. Games like Halo 3 put out map packs of 3 maps at a time for $10, which is actually more per map, and outrage was minimal. The biggest complainers are sometimes entitled brats who just look for reasons to hate.

That being said, the situation with Infinity Ward was just terrible. That situation would be like if after making Jaws, the production company fired Steven Speilberg because he didn't make Jaws 2 immediatly afterwards. That being said, it's not like those other companies wouldn't be in Activision's position if they could be.

Also, didn't Kotick actually say that he wanted to "Take the fun out of making games"?

I mean... wtf? It kind of sounds like something a cartoon super villain would aspire to do.

TJORLY

Kotick = 100% hate

Activision = 50%

Lol, I keep my mind open, but Kotick has said and done some really dumb stuff, in addition to CoD being awful and milked to hell.

NaveedLife

I think some of the outrage is questionable, at best. Somebody in this thread mentions the maps in Modern Warfare 2, where you payed $15 for 5 maps. I want to call shenanigans on that. Games like Halo 3 put out map packs of 3 maps at a time for $10, which is actually more per map, and outrage was minimal. The biggest complainers are sometimes entitled brats who just look for reasons to hate.

That being said, the situation with Infinity Ward was just terrible. That situation would be like if after making Jaws, the production company fired Steven Speilberg because he didn't make Jaws 2 immediatly afterwards. That being said, it's not like those other companies wouldn't be in Activision's position if they could be.AtomicTangerine

Just because a lot of people exercise selective criticism or the fact that other companies are equally terrible in certain aspects doesn't excuse Activision. In my mind, it isn't that Activision is bad whereas everyone else is great, but simply that Activision is, hands down, the worst right now. So we nail the worst to the cross to ensure that the other ones get the message - and make no mistake - the others are aware of Activision's success which they do want for themselves just as much as they are aware of Activision's horrible image which they definitely don't want.

I don't hate either. Activision is a business. The goal of a business is to make money. Are Activision and Kotick greedy? Sure they are. Their goal is to make money and maximize profit. The game industry, like most other industries, is driven by greed.

There's a lot of hate for Activision these days. But is it really the company that people hate? Or is it just Bobby Kotick; the poster boy for Activision that people hate? After all, he does want to take all of the fun out of gaming. The grudge I have against Activison is that they keep him around. $15.00 maps packs for Modern Warfare 2? I could be wrong, but I figure that was Kotick's doing.

jensen13j

I don't hate either. Kotick is a business man, and a good one at that. And as long as Activision continues to produce good product, I'll support it.

I've got a long list of things to hate in my life, and if you're going to waste your energy hating a videogame CEO, you have your priorities ***-backwards.

Neither. They're both doing there thing, andI respect that. I'd do the same in their position, if i had the testicular fortitude.

No one has yet to answer my question. What's the backstory on Kotick and why is he that hated?

No one has yet to answer my question. What's the backstory on Kotick and why is he that hated?

Metamania

He was also one of the key players that negotiated the merger of Activision and Vivendi, which many feel has caused Blizzard to lose its soul. He's basically created what EA was a few years ago, only worse. Not to mention many dev houses have closed after being absorbed by Activision, mainly due to the milking of Guitar Hero.

Mostly though, he's hated for everything that he says to the stockholders. It reinforces every single negative image of the man. Look up just about everything he's said in the last 2-3 years, and it won't take long to understand people's hate.

Can't hate one without hating the other IMO. Don't kid yourselves people. Kotick is just the mouth of Activision. Their are countless other people influencing the decisions the company makes in the background. As much of a d-bag as the guy is, he is not the god of Activision, his word is not law there. He seems little more than a glorified PR guy at this point. When he's not grandstanding and spewing nonsense to the press, and instead actually talking about the inner workings of Actvision, he seems rather clueless as to whats going on.

The CEO isn't the one in charge of the legal department, even though everything goes back to him in some manner. Most of it is Kotick though, and honestly Vivendi. People forget that Activision Blizzard Holdings is just the trade name for Vivendi's (a French media conglomerate) video game division, and the choice to drop many of those games that Activision was originally publishing was made above Kotick. Vivendi owns over 50% of the shares of Activision, and all decisions they make are to satisfy their parent company, who sees everything as purely a numbers game. So yes, it was Kotick's choice to sell out and become the one "on the Death Star," as he put it. He fit right in, and someday, he'll just become a scapegoat once Vivendi feels like it's becoming too problematic to keep him around. That won't happen until Call of Duty goes the route of Guitar Hero, though. To date I don't own a single game with the Activision brand name on it, and I don't plan to change that.MAILER_DAEMON

True but really I dont remember ever having anything against Vivendi. They were just there whereas Kotick now is in gamers face with a buisness like attitude that people do not associate with gaming. The odd thing of course is that Kotick has been at Activision for years and years its only now that hes gone crazy and decided to ruin the reputation of his company, along with that of Blizzard since most people do actually think that Kotick can go to Blizz and tell them what to do becouse he "owns" them.

The CEO isn't the one in charge of the legal department, even though everything goes back to him in some manner. Most of it is Kotick though, and honestly Vivendi. People forget that Activision Blizzard Holdings is just the trade name for Vivendi's (a French media conglomerate) video game division, and the choice to drop many of those games that Activision was originally publishing was made above Kotick. Vivendi owns over 50% of the shares of Activision, and all decisions they make are to satisfy their parent company, who sees everything as purely a numbers game. So yes, it was Kotick's choice to sell out and become the one "on the Death Star," as he put it. He fit right in, and someday, he'll just become a scapegoat once Vivendi feels like it's becoming too problematic to keep him around. That won't happen until Call of Duty goes the route of Guitar Hero, though. To date I don't own a single game with the Activision brand name on it, and I don't plan to change that.MAILER_DAEMON

Vivendi has a rather hands-off approach. Sierra published lots of quite original, niche games and gave start-up developers a chance (on the PC side especially). It was Sierra that signed Brutal Legend, not Activision. Vivendi simply decided to merge all their gaming assets with Activision and place it in their hands save for Blizzard. It was Activision's decision to close down Sierra's studios (and Sierra itself), sell franchises and drop games.

You're right that Vivendi probably sees things as purely a numbers game. As long as Activision Blizzard is posting profits, they probably don't care much what's going on.

BK has had enough influence on Activision and important decisions that really makes the two one in the same.

Part of me wants to ignore it. You know, join the people saying that it's a business, of course they want to make money. It's just too ridiculous. Since the original Modern Warfare back in 2007, we've had 3 new Call of Duty games. World at War was ok, Modern Warfare 2 was atrocious and it was clear that it was due to Activision's influence. The lack of a beta test, the rush to put out the game, etc. Black Ops, from what I played at a friend's house, is better but I have no reason to support this obvious milking of a once great franchise.

I picked up Transformers: War for Cybertron earlier this year and while it was fun, it felt rushed. It also felt like there could have been more to it. Similarly, I've recently played 007: Blood Stone as I'm a huge Bond fan and while it was fun, it lacked polish in certain areas. I think that if it was any other company they would have moved back the release date and made the game better.

Also, Activision has led to the destruction of some of my favorite devs. Most recently being Raven. They're still there, but what are they doing now? Making CoD map packs? Singularity was a fun game, but Activision did zero advertising for it and killed it before it had a chance.

If BK leaves and someone redeems the Activision name, I'll be happy. Especially since they own the rights to some of my favorite franchises now (like 007). But right now, I hate both since they're pretty much the same.

I don't hate either. Activision is a business. The goal of a business is to make money. Are Activision and Kotick greedy? Sure they are. Their goal is to make money and maximize profit. The game industry, like most other industries, is driven by greed.

MathMattS

Everyone on here are making valid points. I myself don't hate Activision, like someone on here said, they are a business after all. I just don't like Bobby Kotick. But I do not wish any harm upon him. I hope that he gets replaced soon enough so that he can stop "annually exploiting" franchises. Because I myself greatly enjoy Call of Duty and Guitar Hero. One game released every year is a little much.

They are two seperate entities both owned by Vivendi/UpInFlames

[QUOTE="Metamania"]

No one has yet to answer my question. What's the backstory on Kotick and why is he that hated?

MAILER_DAEMON

He was also one of the key players that negotiated the merger of Activision and Vivendi, which many feel has caused Blizzard to lose its soul. He's basically created what EA was a few years ago, only worse. Not to mention many dev houses have closed after being absorbed by Activision, mainly due to the milking of Guitar Hero.

Mostly though, he's hated for everything that he says to the stockholders. It reinforces every single negative image of the man. Look up just about everything he's said in the last 2-3 years, and it won't take long to understand people's hate.

Sorry for not getting back to you quickly. Thank you for answering my question!

I did a quick search on Wiki and he seems like one miserable guy that doesn't play videogames. I can see why the hatred would be valid enough by the gaming community. Trying to exploit franchises like Call Of Duty into a cash-cow thing and not caring about the people that put so much work into the games is NOT a bright idea...

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]They are two seperate entities both owned by Vivendi/IronBass

You really don't understand what happened in that deal, do you?

Directly from Blizzard: Blizzard and Activision are really two separate entities, and we really do our own thing.

[QUOTE="IronBass"][QUOTE="UpInFlames"]They are two seperate entities both owned by Vivendi/UpInFlames

You really don't understand what happened in that deal, do you?

Directly from Blizzard: Blizzard and Activision are really two separate entities, and we really do our own thing.

Exactly. Blizzard is still fine by me - have an awesome track record with their games. They are completely seperate from Activision.

Why would I hate Activision? This company has created some of my favourite games(Rome Total War,Guitar Hero etc)

Kotick sounds like a real a**hole though

Well, I can't quite say hate, but I am not fond of their current business model.

[QUOTE="IronBass"][QUOTE="UpInFlames"]They are two seperate entities both owned by Vivendi/UpInFlames

You really don't understand what happened in that deal, do you?

Directly from Blizzard: Blizzard and Activision are really two separate entities, and we really do our own thing.