Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Gorbles]

In his circles, we are seen as sheep to be shorn.

This much is true. AD1730's consistent problem in this argument is trying to make Take Two out as unique in this regard.

Imagine the CEO of Warner Brothers saying that they don't watch movies or TV. Or how about a basketball team exec saying they've never been into basketball. That just wouldn't happen. The way gaming execs act is unique even for the entertainment industry. There is a level of contempt for the gaming consumer that is far beyond what we see in other areas in the entertainment industry.

You sure you want to run with the professional sports analogy?

(also imagine defending Warner Brothers by proxy, all to stick it to the company in charge of Civilisation)

 

[queenpea]

This much is true. AD1730's consistent problem in this argument is trying to make Take Two out as unique in this regard.

I don't see it this way. I think we are just discussing the industry in general.

 

[Core Imposter]

Imagine the CEO of Warner Brothers saying that they don't watch movies or TV. Or how about a basketball team exec saying they've never been into basketball. That just wouldn't happen. The way gaming execs act is unique even for the entertainment industry. There is a level of contempt for the gaming consumer that is far beyond what we see in other areas in the entertainment industry.

Yeah, he could be a little nicer while he bends us over.

 

[Gorbles]

I don't see it this way. I think we are just discussing the industry in general.

And I'm pointing out that across industries, Core Imposter's opinion holds (in my opinion). Heck, Warner Bros even makes games.

Anywhere where the result is profit-focused, you'll see this behaviour. But insisting that a CEO therefore has to play video games is asinine pandering. Even if Take Two's CEO did, it would not change how they made games. I'm confident of that opinion.

 

[queenpea]

And I'm pointing out that across industries, Core Imposter's opinion holds (in my opinion). Heck, Warner Bros even makes games.

Anywhere where the result is profit-focused, you'll see this behaviour. But insisting that a CEO therefore has to play video games is asinine pandering. Even if Take Two's CEO did, it would not change how they made games. I'm confident of that opinion.

I guess I am confused as Core Imposter's opinion seems to be a more visceral form of AD1730's. I do not see them as opposing viewpoints whatsoever.

I don't think anyone is asking for Take Two to pander to its audience. It's not impossible to imagine Zelnick's quote to be reformulated so that it is less dismissive of his customer while retaining all of its meaning.

 

[sixty4half]

Imagine the CEO of Warner Brothers saying that they don't watch movies or TV. Or how about a basketball team exec saying they've never been into basketball. That just wouldn't happen. The way gaming execs act is unique even for the entertainment industry. There is a level of contempt for the gaming consumer that is far beyond what we see in other areas in the entertainment industry.

Imagine the CEO of a Social Media company saying they spend 2 hours a day on social media! Their boardroom and stockholders would be having meetings about how quickly they could replace the guy.

@queenpea is right though, it probably could be worded better

 

[Gorbles]

I guess I am confused as Core Imposter's opinion seems to be a more visceral form of AD1730's. I do not see them as opposing viewpoints whatsoever.

AD1730 is saying (and did explicitly say) that there is a difference between gaming CEOs and CEOs of other kinds of company.

There isn't. Maybe you're mixing up my opinion and Core Imposter's. I took his sentence, and this "this applies across all industries" (for which CEO is a position and consumerism is a relationship that dictates engagement with the product).

I don't particularly care about reformulating Zelnick's opinion, personally. He's a CEO giving public quotes. I hold absolutely zero appreciation for him doing so. But I also like to criticise people who co-opt this to make "gamers" some downtrodden "underclass", because all it is is a CEO doing CEO things. Him not playing games has nothing to do with how he views consumers. Him playing games wouldn't either.

(and, rationally, diversifying input at that level of business is actually a good thing)

 

[CliffCo]

Came across this quote from the Take-Two CEO in a PC Gamer article:

"I'm not a gamer," Zelnick continues. "I don't play videogames at all, I'm not the Consumer-in-Chief. I share my opinions pretty openly, but I think being the Consumer-in-Chief in the entertainment business as a CEO is probably a mistake."

I don't understand why we tolerate this in the gaming industry. Imagine the CEO of Microsoft saying that he doesn't use computers, or the CEO of Ford saying he never drives cars. It's nonsensical for just about any other industry to have leadership that is unfamiliar with and doesn't use the product they make. Yet, in gaming it's seen almost as a sort of badge of honor.

How can you possibly understand your consumers at all if you do not use your product? This is particularly true of games, which are interactive and create far more emotional connection than most products.

When the inevitable anti-consumer DLC policy rolls out, I'll keep this quote at the front of my mind.

It's not a fair comparison to compare computers and cars with computer games as the former are part of essential everyday life for most of us.

Do you really expect the CEO of a company like Take Two which develops multiple games to sit around playing them? I don't.

 

[AD1730]

Imagine the CEO of a Social Media company saying they spend 2 hours a day on social media! Their boardroom and stockholders would be having meetings about how quickly they could replace the guy.

@queenpea is right though, it probably could be worded better

Did I ever say there is some sort of time requirement? No. I don't think it's too much to ask that the CEO of a company uses the types of products their company makes and generally likes them. To me, it's an issue when your CEO comes out and says "I don't even use the types of products we make!" and sees it as a badge of honor. It's very odd, and gaming is the only place I've seen this sort of attitude (it's not just Take-Two, I recall seeing these sorts of comments from other execs in the industry). Do you really think CEOs in other industries would just come out and say that sort of thing? I certainly don't.

For what it's worth, I would guess Elon Musk spends two hours per day on social media and his stockholders have been fighting to give him a raise, so...

 

[AD1730]

Do you really expect the CEO of a company like Take Two which develops multiple games to sit around playing them? I don't.

Again, you're saying something that I never claim in my comment. He flat out says he doesn't play games, period. I'm not asking for hours on end, just that people in the industry occasionally play them, like them, appreciate them, and hopefully all of that leads them to have more respect for the audience. That's all.

 

[CliffCo]

Again, you're saying something that I never claim in my comment. He flat out says he doesn't play games, period. I'm not asking for hours on end, just that people in the industry occasionally play them, like them, appreciate them, and hopefully all of that leads them to have more respect for the audience. That's all.

I disagree with that statement, you can be a brilliant CEO but not use the product your company develops. There are plenty of employees that can report their findings to the CEO without him or her having to play them.

 

[Gorbles]

and hopefully all of that leads them to have more respect for the audience

So all the CEOs that do use their products have a healthy respect for their consumer base? Do you have any evidence for this claim that underpins your entire argument?

You mentioned Warner Brothers earlier. How's that working out for them?

(link redirects to The Hollywood Reporter, "Why Warner Bros. Discovery’s Issues Are Beyond ‘Batgirl’")

 

[AD1730]

I disagree with that statement, you can be a brilliant CEO but not use the product your company develops. There are plenty of employees that can report their findings to the CEO without him or her having to play them.

And I disagree with yours, particularly in the entertainment context.

 

[CliffCo]

And I disagree with yours, particularly in the entertainment context.

Then why make a comparison between video games, and cars/computers, your argument doesn't make sense.

 

[queenpea]

Then why make a comparison between video games, and cars/computers, your argument doesn't make sense.

In the industry in which I work, the wristwatch industry, you would be extremely hard pressed to find a major CEO proudly say that they don't wear a wristwatch. In fact, even being photographed with a bare wrist would be a scandal in itself. The argument makes sense to me.

 

[Gorbles]

In the industry in which I work, the wristwatch industry, you would be extremely hard pressed to find a major CEO proudly say that they don't wear a wristwatch. In fact, even being photographed with a bare wrist would be a scandal in itself. The argument makes sense to me.

And the wearing of the wristwatch would in no way engender any feelings for the consumers of the company. That's the causal link; the point of the supposed outrage. All we have is AD1730 saying "hopefully" that it would engender some change.

Which is silly, because plenty of video game companies with c-suite members familiar with games do loads of exploitative stuff on the regular, so.

(I also like that the educational software example was skipped - that's where I work, and it'd be nonsense for a CEO to proudly proclaim in his 40s, 50s or whatever that he used the same software university students were using)

 

[CliffCo]

In the industry in which I work, the wristwatch industry, you would be extremely hard pressed to find a major CEO proudly say that they don't wear a wristwatch. In fact, even being photographed with a bare wrist would be a scandal in itself. The argument makes sense to me.

For luxury wrist watches wearing one is more of a status symbol and can you say that the CEO of these companies always wears a watch made by their company without it being a requirement. Many people these days don't even wear watches as much as they did in the past.

 

[AD1730]

Then why make a comparison between video games, and cars/computers, your argument doesn't make sense.

I think the argument holds for most other categories as well. I believe it's even stronger with entertainment because entertainment is designed to evoke emotion. Therefore, I believe it is even more important for those involved in producing it to enjoy the type of entertainment they produce. This is heightened even further due to the interactivity of games, because that interactivity creates stronger emotional connection to the product.

 

[Gorbles]

I think the argument holds for most other categories as well. I believe it's even stronger with entertainment because entertainment is designed to evoke emotion. Therefore, I believe it is even more important for those involved in producing it to enjoy the type of entertainment they produce. This is heightened even further due to the interactivity of games, because that interactivity creates stronger emotional connection to the product.

So it should be trivial for you to provide examples where and how the CEOs playing video games had a tangible positive impact on any resulting product at the consumer level. Right?

 

[queenpea]

And the wearing of the wristwatch would in no way engender any feelings for the consumers of the company. That's the causal link; the point of the supposed outrage. All we have is AD1730 saying "hopefully" that it would engender some change.

Which is silly, because plenty of video game companies with c-suite members familiar with games do loads of exploitative stuff on the regular, so.

(I also like that the educational software example was skipped - that's where I work, and it'd be nonsense for a CEO to proudly proclaim in his 40s, 50s or whatever that he used the same software university students were using)

I am saying that if a watch CEO proudly admitted that he doesn't wear a watch, or enjoy watches, then yes, this would create obvious backlash from clients.

For luxury wrist watches wearing one is more of a status symbol and can you say that the CEO of these companies always wears a watch made by their company without it being a requirement. Many people these days don't even wear watches as much as they did in the past.

Sorry, I don't understand your point here.