Now even game developers hate Bobby Kottick, like the man behind psychonauts  ...... and that Jack Black game

Eurogamer: What do you think about Bobby Kotick? He's a person.

Tim Schafer: He is. Well, allegedly. Ah... I don't know.

Eurogamer: I'll tell you what I think.

Tim Schafer: What do you think?

Eurogamer: I think he's a bit misunderstood because he's trying to make lots of money when people think he has an obligation to make gamers happy.

Tim Schafer: His obligation is to his shareholders. Well, he doesn't have to be as much of a dick about it, does he? I think there is a way he can do it without being a total prick. It seems like it would be possible. It's not something he's interested in.

Eurogamer: Why should he care?

Tim Schafer: Well, he makes a big deal about not liking games, and I just don't think that attitude is good for games in general. I don't think we're an industry of widgets. I don't think we can approach it like we approach bars of soap, where you're just trying to make the cheapest bar of soap.

He definitely has that that kind of widget-maker attitude. I don't think he's great for the industry, overall. You can't just latch onto something when it's popular and then squeeze the life out of it and then move on to the next one. You have to at some point create something, build something.

"Hopefully he'll go back to another industry scene. He could go to an industry that makes more money. Ball bearings… something that suits his passions more. Weapons manufacturing?"

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/double-fines-tim-schafer-develop-interview?page=4

true story

lol, the whole interview was pretty good.  my favorite part:

Eurogamer: What happened there then?

Tim Schafer: He died.

Oh Tim we all love you so for pointing out the obvious in a funny way 

and this is why we love Tim Schafer

Eurogamer: I think he's a bit misunderstood because he's trying to make lots of money when people think he has an obligation to make gamers happy.

Tim Schafer: His obligation is to his shareholders. Well, he doesn't have to be as much of a dick about it, does he? I think there is a way he can do it without being a total prick. It seems like it would be possible. It's not something he's interested in.

Umm.....isn't an obligation to make gamers happy essentially the same as having an obligation to his shareholders? We may not have stock in Activision, but if you make shitty games, we won't buy them. And then shares will go down in value, which will then piss off his shareholders

The difference is that, he max out on the profit end, instead of a balance in the middle to make all sides happy.

But if he doesn't make gamers happy in the long-term profits will go down. Making gamers happy may lower short-term profits but it's the best way to secure long-term profits.

If you make a shitty game who will buy the sequel? Seeing as all he wants are huge franchises he should learn how to make them last in the long-term and stop thinking he can create them from thin air

It doesn't necessarily have to be a balance, though, that you sacrifice on one side to get to the other. Mad profits can be obtained by optimizing consumer happiness, Kotick's just running with this the wrong way.

Remember that Kotick came here from 4Kids TV, which had a similar mentality. Latch on to the last big thing out of Japan and run it into the ground, then move on from its dessicated corpse (sheds a tear for One Piece in the USA)

lol great interview : )