Bobby Kotick Vs HipHopGamer: Corporate Shakedown, HHG Vs The Industry Vol 5

Many gamers in the industry are very disappointed in Mr. Bobby Kotick but even more so in Treyarch in terms of the Playstation 3 treatment that has been received for the final black ops product. As big of a name that Call Of Duty has managed to achieve just like Halo all things can be toned down and everyone including the infamous Bobby Kotick can and will be humbled. There's a ton of first person shooters that's coming out this year and beyond and just to name a few, Resistance 3, Crysis 2, Killzone 3, and more. Call Of Duty's brand name can easily become the guitar hero of the bunch meaning that gamers will go else where and the strong support of this franchise won't be as strong as normal.

At the end of the day right is right and wrong is wrong GAMERS DESERVE BETTER, in this video clip you will also see a special interview that me and Josh Olin had, and it's amazing how great Treyarch is, they didn't live up to the hype in terms of perfected the PS3 version.

All this and more in this video, WELCOME TO ANOTHER EDITION OF HHG Vs THE INDUSTRY

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.

It's about time that somebody did this.

NiKK_4192703d ago

yea, great show, i'm glad that you're in the position to be influential and you do it for good, because most of us think that way, but we don't have the power to be heard, besides our words on forums, but you are in the spot where people listen to you and i'm glad that you speak the truth and aren't afraid to direct your words at the higher ups, great show, i hope everyone that can make a difference watches this, because this is how it should be

Lifendz2702d ago

There is this word called were. It's not we was; it's we were. It's not they was; it's they were.

And is HHG going bald? That hairline is pushed like Lebron.

Hitman07692703d ago

Look at all that money, he's smiling because he doesn't allow games to innovate and we keep buying them anyways...

poe2702d ago (Edited 2702d ago )

Bobby KO-Tick is a CEO of a publicly traded company.

Kojima is a game developer.

Big big difference. IF anyone is to blame about Call of Duty Black Ops problems it's not Activision. Activision is a publisher, not a developer. You seem to mix these words too freely. Bobby KO ticks company handles the distribution and marketing of Treyarch's product.

The reason that Josh came out to announce that they are supporting the PS3 is because it's THEIR FAULT. And can be replaced. They are the ones that fucked up with BLOPS.

Not Bobby Kotick, Kotick gets a bad rep, but he's doing his goddamn job. His job is to maximize shareholder gains. PERIOD. He is binded by law to do what is in the best interest of shareholders, but I wouldnt expect you to know this. You seem too feeble minded to really understand the concept of corporate America.

Stop talking out of your ass. It's noble to represent the gamers, but when you are talking about publicly traded corporations there are things called laws. Bobby Kotick does what is best for his shareholders because he is binded by law to do so.

Saladfax2702d ago (Edited 2702d ago )

There are no laws that state any CEO has to act in the best interests of the shareholders. Of course, any CEO would get fired pretty damn quickly if he/she didn't.

The main objection is in itself your point: games production is run as a corporate money machine as opposed to an intriguing, artistic endeavor (not getting pretentious here). This means innovation (risk) is limited, and carbon copies of things that work are spun out with vigor.

Shallow, samey experiences with bland stories are rushed out and make a decent profit, and the market is flooded with clones of clones of clones. This makes for a very dull pile of games.

On the other hand, it is entirely possible to have an environment which emphasizes quality and new ideas first (look at Valve) and still make a heavy profit. However, it's less of a sure thing than the strict business and money policies Kotick maintains.

poe2702d ago

Hey, I'm not trying to say I don't like innovation. I like a new and innovative product just as much as the next gamer. The bottom line is this whole rant is borderline retarded.

Profit maximization, risk aversion, and innovation don't go well together you said this yourself. Valve takes huge risks. Thats why they are adored by the gaming community and in turn make large sums of money. Not all companies are capable of doing this.

These games now cost 100's of millions of dollars to produce, they are just trying to maximize their profits. And frankly I don't blame them. Noone forces anyone to buy Call of Duty. Nor any game for that matter. If Bobby Kotick took a dump in a box and sold it, people would complain that it stinks eventhough they knew it was shit. Which is the perfect analogy for Call of Duty.

I'm pretty sure the corporate governance of Activision states that. They could sue the shit out of him, and oust him.

Show all comments (37)
The story is too old to be commented.