I’m sure he did make games worse, but he also covered up for rapists and threatened to kill employees which seems maybe more headline worthy to me.
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.
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.
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.
This is not news. The man’s job was to make profitable games, not good games.
