Is Bobby Kotick bad for Blizzard?
by Mike Schramm 
Jan 22nd 2009 at 3:00PM
Yesterday, when we wrote about Blizzard's mistakes in patch 3.0.8, I made very sure to stay away from any mention of Activision. Call me naive, but I still don't think the Activision-Blizzard relationship has yet affected how Blizzard conducts business -- Blizzard's mistake of releasing the patch before it was ready was, in my mind, all their own. But not everyone feels that way (just read the comments on yesterday's post), and Ben Kuchera of Ars Technica will go a step further: he's calling Activision-Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick out for caring more about how much money his games make rather than how good they are.We've talked about Kotick here before, and we've got him saying both that Activision will leave Blizzard alone and that they'll be seeking additional revenues where they can get them. But Kuchera isn't so balanced -- he's ready to pin Blizzard's decisions, including the idea to cut Starcraft II up into three different games, and the pending monetization of Battle.net on Activision's influence. And the last nail in the coffin is Kotick's recent profile in Forbes, which apparently had the writer calling Rock Band a "knock-off" of Activision's Guitar Hero (even though history says otherwise, since Harmonix, without Activision, created both franchises).
But that gets a little too far into non-Blizzard territory for us. Kuchera finishes by saying that there's two forces at work in Azeroth: "the loyalty of [WoW's] players" and "Kotick's cash lust." And he questions what will happen when the two finally face off. Which is basically what we've been saying for a long time. But the question so far is whether that's happened or not. Have Activision and Kotick pushed Blizzard to make the Starcraft II and Battle.net decisions, or is Blizzard making all of these choices on their own?
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Virtual selves, Blizzard, Expansions, Making money
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Firestride Jan 22nd 2009 3:09PM
I want WoW to stay great too, but let's not confuse what a CEO's job is: his or her job is to make as much money for the company as he legally can. Sure, it seems better in the long run to produce a quality product, but that is secondary to the point.
Coren Jan 27th 2009 6:14AM
Actually the job of the CEO is defined by the goals set to him by his shareholders, commonly in the form of a reward structure like stock options or stock. The goal of shareholders is (almost) always higher market value for their stock, which is defined by the profit in the future. Hence in a perfect world the CEO's goal would be to do investments that increase the value of the firm in the future, which would mainly rely on customer satisfaction and repeat-buying of the product (in this case probably, this is purely my speculation).
But because a lot of reward structures are in fact more short term in nature than long term you might be right. Let's hope Activision's shareholders are smart enough to not put out a short term reward for the CEO ;-)
Mindreaver Jan 22nd 2009 3:09PM
As a Software Engineer myself, I'll say that it usually isn't that the people push for faster time to market want that product to suck.
Usually the conversation goes:
CEO: "We want an impossible timeframe"
Grunts: "That's impossible, it'll suck if we do that"
CEO: "Well then I'll give you more resources, and you need to get it done faster then you want to."
Grunts: "Looks like I am screwed, but at least more people are involved."
And then you get a compromise between absolute crap and perfection.
Although this is a lot of QQ over some really minor stuff. Remember when ZA came out, and effing NOTHING worked? Jesus, at least my mods still functioned.
ObtuseMoose Jan 22nd 2009 3:31PM
I've had these conversations so often that I have a standard response:
Execs: "We want an impossible time frame"
Me: "That's impossible, it'll suck if we do that"
Execs: "Well then I'll give you more resources, and you need to get it done faster then you want to."
Execs: "More resources, huh? Well, I'm sure sure when two women can give birth to one baby in 4.5 months this approach will finally be validated."
Michael Jan 22nd 2009 3:43PM
LOL that is great, I am totally telling that to my boss when I get my next project.
Osc Jan 22nd 2009 3:45PM
I don't really buy the executives forcing this out the door. This is an issue of doing too much with one patch rather than dividing up fixes into multiple patches. A good example of feature creep at its worst :(.
uncaringbear Jan 22nd 2009 7:46PM
@Mindreaver and ObtuseMoose
QFT. No truer words have been spoken in the comments section. If we see the quantity of Blizz job positions dramatically increase, we are royally fucked.
Plastic Rat Jan 22nd 2009 9:11PM
@Obtusemoose
You sir win a lot of internets. I'm printing that out and sticking it to my office wall.
p.s If you don't see me comment on here for a while it's because I'm out looking for a job.
Ross Jan 22nd 2009 3:10PM
First asshat today, yes...
Amaxe Jan 22nd 2009 3:10PM
Is Kotick even aware of what is going on with WoW?
http://www.gucomics.com/comic/?cdate=20090120
Lemons Jan 22nd 2009 5:00PM
He is aware that there is a "World of the Warcrafts"
and that it is a kart racing adventure.
WoWie Zowie Jan 22nd 2009 3:10PM
i vote blizztivision. they have already decided to join forces with activision. that was the first hint that they wanted to make some bank. i don't believe they are getting pressure from Kotick on this, that dude is happy enough to ride blizz's coattails.
kworry Jan 22nd 2009 3:14PM
As far as I know Blizz basically bailed out Vivendi who merged with Activision. Unless Kotick is actually playing the game, this sure looks like he sees Blizz from and entirely business perspective.
Someone should remind him that the game got popular by doing it Blizz's way, not his.
dreadpiraterose Jan 22nd 2009 3:16PM
I'd be hesitant to blame Acitivision and their influence. If anything, I'd say we, the players, were the ones pushing for the patch more than anything (or anyone) else. We put on immense pressure and QQing for a release, they release it, we bitch about it. Nasty little cycle going on.
Kelly
http://conventionfans.today.com
Leto Jan 22nd 2009 4:01PM
If Blizzard would stop their idiotic method of cramming as much fixes into a patch as posssible they'd have less problems. Even after all these years they still haven't realized that one fix might break something else, so logically many fixes would bring many bugs. What they need to do is focus on the biggest bugs/issues, release a patch for it quickly, and then move on to fix the next biggest bugs/issue.
GrayElf Jan 22nd 2009 8:47PM
I think Leto covered it fairly well...
Sure, players were pushing for fixes. But they took 2 months to develop this patch...and the contents (not method of implementation) of the patch was changing up to, what 2 weeks before it was released? Or maybe it was three...
There are hundreds of open source projects around the world, coping with this issue very easily, as a hobby, without even a paycheck, or a boss, or project management being done as a seperate task, by someone other than the developers.
It's really simple...feature freeze. You pick a point in time, and say "we will not add anything new beyond this, but only fix any bugs we find." Every version control system on the planet provides a "branch" concept, so new things for the next patch can be done in parallel, if necessary. But freezing the content of a patch prevents "feeping creaturism" (far more icky-sounding than the original), which kills more projects than anything except bad management - which of course, causes creeping featurism...
Either decide in advance what will be in a patch, or set a deadline for including new things, then test it - starting on the next patch if necessary, but ensuring that the things you include in the next one have had sufficient testing time, and encouraging a development proces, rather than a "let's get it done" - "get what done? You want something, but - how the hell are we supposed to work out what IT does, when IT changes every few days?" dead-end.
There's bugs a-plenty in WoW, and lots of things that can/should be scheduled for fixing, and fixed. There's no excuse for a patch that breaks as many things as it fixes (or so it seems), and fails, miserably, to fix so many of the things it claimed to fix...some of them were simply left out completely!
Restricting how many things go into a patch simplifies the development and testing process, gets patches out to customers faster to satisfy players who just wanna whine, while avoiding much of the damage done by putting too much stuff into a patch that took so long to prepare that the pressure got too great (whether management, or player) that it was released disastrously early.
This is simple stuff...any IT specialist should be aware of these issues (even though we tend to lose sight of them, in the face of a project to work on), and any competant manager should not only undersetand this comprehensively, they should ensure that the techs don't lose sight of it by establishing processes, and sticking to them. And yes, the process can also establish exceptions - that's a minor detail, really.
The scale of WoW is no real excuse, it only highlights the importance of doing things properly, not justify making a mess of them.
Bigfish Jan 22nd 2009 3:19PM
Dude's a total slimeball, but his job is to make money, not put out good games. I see nothing of merit to link this guy's money lust to a crummy patch. Bad patches happen. Suck it up for a week til things get weeded out. Heck, if the dude can get Blizz to start releasing stuff outside WoW expansions more often than once a decade, more power to him.
Fuseitana Jan 22nd 2009 3:22PM
"...the loyalty of [WoW's] players" and "Kotick's cash lust." And he questions what will happen when the two finally face off."
Well, let's look to recent history to see what happens, General Motors and their behemoth SUVs anyone? Enron and their efforts to marketize utilities? The softer side of Sears?
As long as capitalism is dominant, it will destroy whatever it sells.
Mihn Jan 22nd 2009 5:11PM
LOL.
Man, you loonie lefties are everywhere. What is the matter, was your starbucks not the way you wanted it? Run out of patchouli?
If there is any truisim in these virtual worlds, it is that capitalisim works.
You cant afford an item or service, then you don't deserve it, period. Healthcare nothwithstanding.
Ice Jan 22nd 2009 3:25PM
Activision blizzard is bigger than EA. Of course they want to milk some money when they know they just can. No risks allowed(they canned plenty of games for this year).
I dont think Blizzard wanted to make 3 split-up games...unless Blizzard I knew is partly dead.
EA has Bioware and Bioware is making MMO. It wont beat WoW thats for sure, but we shall see how they work things out at EA. Or is it lucasarts + bioware? Dont remember but still.
I never really liked the way Activision worked. Activision is new EA. At least EA is making new things to their license games and stuff like mirrors edge, dead space, army of two etc