Ex-Call of Duty and Blizzard devs criticize Bobby Kotick for making games worse.

A detailed look at the controversial statements made by former Call of Duty and Blizzard developers against Activision CEO Bobby Kotick, and how they view his impact on the gaming industry.

Critics of Bobby Kotick, CEO of Activision, are not limited to the gaming industry's spectators. In recent times, former developers of esteemed gaming franchises like Call of Duty and Blizzard have stood in opposition.

The critics are an impressive repertoire of developers, including the likes of Jason West, Vince Zampella and Grant Collier. Their critiques maintain that Kotick's leadership has had detrimental effects on the games they produced during their time at Activision.

SpaceX's latest Starlink dish will be priced at $599, as announced via company email.
Related Article

One particularly strong criticism has come from Jason West. This leading game developer, who once helmed the creation of the Call of Duty franchise, maintains that Kotick's strategies for game development are based more on profit than on creativity or quality.

Ex-Call of Duty and Blizzard devs criticize Bobby Kotick for making games worse. ImageAlt

West points to the rapid release of sequels under Kotick's leadership. He argues that this emphasis on quantity over quality has led to a decline in the overall creative outputs of the franchises, Call of Duty in particular.

The Former Blizzard Developers Stance

Former Blizzard developers echo these sentiments. David Brevik and Erich Schaefer, who were pivotal to the creation of Diablo , argue that Bobby Kotick's approach stifles innovation.

They point to the pressures to create games quickly to meet the demands of the market. This rush, they say, hinders creativity and thus affects the quality of the games.

Moreover, they claim that employees at Blizzard are incentivised more towards financial productivity than towards developing quality games. As a result, the passion to create transformative games fades, they argue.

Bill Gates believes AI may eliminate boring chores in our daily lives.
Related Article

This lack of passion, the ex-developers suggest, permeates throughout the company, and eventually to the games themselves. This can result in subpar gaming experiences for the players, they warn.

Financial Success, Creative Failure?

Despite the outcries from former developers, it is difficult to argue against the financial success of Activision under Kotick's leadership. The repetitious release of sequels has proved to be a lucrative strategy.

However, financial success isn't synonymous with critical success, especially in an industry as creative and imaginative as the world of game development.

It's this point that the former developers emphasize; that the worth of a game cannot simply be measured by its financial returns. Rather, it should be assessed by the creativity and innovation it mirrors, and the experience it offers to the players.

They assert that the relentless focus on financial gain reduces the natural process of game development into a mere assembly line of products. This, according to them, leads to a dulling of the final product - the game.

The Kotick Ambivalence

However, the world of video game development is divided on its opinion of Bobby Kotick. Even as many developers offer sharp criticism, others come forward in his defence.

Many developers credit Kotick for leading Activision through an unprecedented era of growth and financial security. This has, they point out, resulted in job security for thousands of developers and other employees in the company.

The argument from this camp is that Kotick has utilized his business instincts to steer the company through turbulent times and emerge with profitable results. These results has enabled thousands of people to earn a living from their passion for gaming.

The question then is this - Is Bobby Kotick a rescuer or a wrecker? The answer, like so many things in the vastly complex universe of video game development, is difficult to pin down and ultimately, subjective in nature.