384
"Bobby Kotick's decisions made our games worse," says former Call of Duty dev
(www.eurogamer.net)
this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2024
384 points (97.8% liked)
Games
16812 readers
519 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm sure he did make games worse, but he also covered up for rapists and threatened to kill employees which seems maybe more headline worthy to me.
The one thing he was at the company to do, was make good games that make good money.
Covering for rapists and threatening to kill employees is bad enough, but I can see a world where that sort of shit is, not forgiven, but swept under the rug.
That world is one where the money flows. It's not a good world, but it's one that's understandable.
But fucking with the games and making shit worse? In a sane world, the Board would take a look at the company and say, no. this guy has to go for all of the above reasons.
That sane world is one where mergers and acquisitions are heavily scrutinized, and Blizzard was not allowed to merge with Activision.
Actual competition in the space means that the CEO has to actually be halfway good at the job, and maybe not a complete psycho. We don't live in a sane world.
He made the games worse, but that doesn't mean he made them less profitable. Those are sadly distinct goals. The CEO does not have an incentive to make good art.
You are making the mistake of conflating game quality with profit. He did not lessen the profitability of the games, on the contrary, and that is what the board cares about, not the quality of games.