• chaogomu@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • adriaan@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

    • yata@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.