Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Gorbles]

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.

Okay, and?

What relevance does this therefore have to video games? What relevance does my example of educational software therefore have to video games?

We're either explicitly relating two different fields, or we're not. Can we make a decision please?

 

[CliffCo]

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.


Sorry, I don't understand your point here.

I'm basically saying that not wearing a wrist watch as a CEO in the watch industry shouldn't be considered a scandal, in the same way i don't feel that the CEO should have to play a video game that their company produced.

 

[queenpea]

Okay, and?

What relevance does this therefore have to video games? What relevance does my example of educational software therefore have to video games?

We're either explicitly relating two different fields, or we're not. Can we make a decision please?

It's a very uncommon thing for a CEO to reject their products publicly. Especially in a news article. I don't understand why this is hard to understand. Or why its hard to understand why a CEO so obviously disassociating themselves with their customer base could be off-putting for some individuals.

 

[Gorbles]

It's a very uncommon thing for a CEO to reject their products publicly. Especially in a news article. I don't understand why this is hard to understand. Or why its hard to understand why a CEO so obviously disassociating themselves with their customer base could be off-putting for some individuals.

In what way is someone not playing video games "rejecting" their products?

I think there are logical leaps being made that are causing some folks to not understand your (and other posters) arguments. If Zelnick "rejected" video games, he probably wouldn't be in the industry. Would be trivial to parachute into a different c-suite job (that's how it works at that level).

I think that someone as high up as a CEO saying "I don't play video games" being interpreted in this way is genuinely unhelpful, at best. There are plenty of examples of industries where CEOs do not associate with their products, because it would make no sense. So raising any other industry isn't evidence of, well, anything really, contextually. We can only focus on the video games industry itself, in my opinion.

I've asked AD1730 many questions in this regard, and had none answered. Fair is fair, I can't compel, but it's something of a glaring omission if nobody can point out in concrete, measurable terms, what benefit a CEO playing a video game actually does for us as players of Civilisation. Bobby Kotick plays games. Can't say I see that as a positive.

 

[queenpea]

In what way is someone not playing video games "rejecting" their products?

I think there are logical leaps being made that are causing some folks to not understand your (and other posters) arguments. If Zelnick "rejected" video games, he probably wouldn't be in the industry. Would be trivial to parachute into a different c-suite job (that's how it works at that level).

I think that someone as high up as a CEO saying "I don't play video games" being interpreted in this way is genuinely unhelpful, at best. There are plenty of examples of industries where CEOs do not associate with their products, because it would make no sense. So raising any other industry isn't evidence of, well, anything really, contextually. We can only focus on the video games industry itself, in my opinion.

I've asked AD1730 many questions in this regard, and had none answered. Fair is fair, I can't compel, but it's something of a glaring omission if nobody can point out in concrete, measurable terms, what benefit a CEO playing a video game actually does for us as players of Civilisation. Bobby Kotick plays games. Can't say I see that as a positive.

I just think it's a silly thing for a CEO to say. "I'm not a gamer" and declaring in a news article that he doesn't play video games (it can therefore be assumed he doesn't enjoy them) - this is not an endorsement of the product. Zelnick is a private equity guy who is incidentally in the video game industry. That is fine, and he's not the only guy in the business with a similar background. If I were advising him, I would suggest he finds other, more gentler ways to express himself. I can understand why someone could find his quote off-putting.

 

[sixty4half]

I thought we were all making jokes about CEOs of various industries for a while....

 

[CliffCo]

It's a very uncommon thing for a CEO to reject their products publicly. Especially in a news article. I don't understand why this is hard to understand. Or why its hard to understand why a CEO so obviously disassociating themselves with their customer base could be off-putting for some individuals.

While it may be off putting to certain people i don't see it as a problem and don't understand why others do. To me the CEO of take two shouldn't feel obligated to play the games they produce.

 

[Gorbles]

I just think it's a silly thing for a CEO to say. "I'm not a gamer" and declaring in a news article that he doesn't play video games (it can therefore be assumed he doesn't enjoy them) - this is not an endorsement of the product. Zelnick is a private equity guy who is incidentally in the video game industry. That is fine, and he's not the only guy in the business with a similar background. If I were advising him, I would suggest he finds other, more gentler ways to express himself. I can understand why someone could find his quote off-putting.

I think there are many things that could be considered off-putting when considering a CEO's impact on the video games industry. I don't think there's much value in hyperfocusing on this specific case, unless there's another angle (to be clear: not yours).

I certainly don't think it's enough evidence to launch a tangent with a screed about how video game executives treat consumers. a) there are plenty other kinds of evidence to make that point with, and b) as I've said, it's not unique to the video games industry.

The short version of my argument still being: it doesn't actually matter whether or not he plays video games, or doesn't, or lies about playing them, or doesn't. But I guess some folks would rather he lied about it in an interview? It doesn't really make sense to me, is all.

 

[queenpea]

I think there are many things that could be considered off-putting when considering a CEO's impact on the video games industry. I don't think there's much value in hyperfocusing on this specific case, unless there's another angle (to be clear: not yours).

I certainly don't think it's enough evidence to launch a tangent with a screed about how video game executives treat consumers. a) there are plenty other kinds of evidence to make that point with, and b) as I've said, it's not unique to the video games industry.

The short version of my argument still being: it doesn't actually matter whether or not he plays video games, or doesn't, or lies about playing them, or doesn't. But I guess some folks would rather he lied about it in an interview? It doesn't really make sense to me, is all.

I understand your point sure. I guess, let's pretend for a moment that Tim Cook hates wearing an Apple watch but is asked in an interview about wearing one. I wouldn't, for a moment, expect him to do anything but sing the praises of the stupid thing. If he said something like "I'm more of a Rolex guy, myself" or "I would never wear a smart watch" or "I'm not a consumer of wearable tech" -- that would be a strange answer for a tech CEO to give to a journalist. Because the CEO's job is to sell the brand, everything it does or makes, and to increase share value. So yes, I would absolutely be floored if Tim Cook answered a question in a way did not enthusiastically endorse Apple or its products.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

While it may be off putting to certain people i don't see it as a problem and don't understand why others do. To me the CEO of take two shouldn't feel obligated to play the games they produce.

No, but as a gamer I feel more confident that a leader has experience from within the industry who has been promoted upwards would make better decisions that would benefit gamers.

Unfortunately as a stakeholder, I feel more confident that I'm going to get more money if I get someone who has proved they can extract monetary value from customers quickly, and I don't care about long term because I can just sell my stock after the cow is milked and move on.

Gamers don't influence CEO hires, stakeholders do

 

[Sagax]

I've asked AD1730 many questions in this regard, and had none answered.

Could be that you got blocked by them, so they don’t see your posts at all.
——
I don’t think a CEO necessarily needs to be deeply involved with their product, because indeed the focus of their role is different. And this disassociation is not impossible to overcome, if the execs make it clear that they leave creative decisions to the actual subject matter experts, and their own input is more advisory.

Ultimately, CEOs are beholden to shareholders and investors, and nowadays the interests of these guys overlap less and less with those of end consumers. My understanding is that those arguing for more “consumer-in-chief” CEOs hope that such an archetype would do a better job at balancing between the two by understanding the needs and struggles of an end consumer, in the face of increasing predatory practices and “enshittification” we see today (you are free to argue if these trends are real or not).

Using TT as an example, I don’t think it’s reasonable to blame the CEO’s lack of gaming experience for the age system and short-sighted implementation. It is, however, reasonable to question how much influence he had on releasing the game in its current state instead of delaying the launch, and whether he had a role in deciding that the game with 30 civs at launch should be followed by a civ DLC just one month after the release.
——
Finally, my own meta commentary: the last two pages were hard to follow. I don’t think y’all are even opposed in your general sentiment, but ended up hyper fixating on specific lines here and there and spiraling out the debate…

 

[Gorbles]

I understand your point sure. I guess, let's pretend for a moment that Tim Cook hates wearing an Apple watch but is asked in an interview about wearing one. I wouldn't, for a moment, expect him to do anything but sing the praises of the stupid thing. If he said something like "I'm more of a Rolex guy, myself" or "I would never wear a smart watch" or "I'm not a consumer of wearable tech" -- that would be a strange answer for a tech CEO to give to a journalist. Because the CEO's job is to sell the brand, everything it does or makes, and to increase share value. So yes, I would absolutely be floored if Tim Cook answered a question in a way did not enthusiastically endorse Apple or its products.

Sure. I guess I don't really buy into that kind of facade, and on some level it's funny because I would think that discerning consumers would appreciate that Zelnick doesn't necessarily either.

But at the same time, if people really want to take one guy not playing games as an indictment of the industry (again, I raise Bobby Kotick, who does play games, and I would love to hear if anyone has any positive anecdotes about him or the products he has managed during the time that he managed them), then they're going to do that regardless of what I type (to be clear again: not saying you're doing this).

No, but as a gamer I feel more confident that a leader has experience from within the industry who has been promoted upwards would make better decisions that would benefit gamers.

Do you have any evidence of CEOs that were promoted from within the industry and have made decisions that have benefitted gamers? Is this evidence strong enough to suggest a trend, or is it possible that the office of CEO attracts specific personality types that only lead to maximising the company's success (at the cost of any other metrics)?

Could be that you got blocked by them, so they don’t see your posts at all.

Yeah, like I said - fair is fair. But also more that nobody picked up on the same threads, either.

One of the age-old drawbacks of a moving forum thread*

*not a criticism of forum threads, even fast-moving ones

 

[stealth_nsk]

Overall CEO of large multi-prpduct corporation makes zero decisions which would require knowledge of any of those products as a user.

Even when presented with decisions like delaying a particular product release, or risks, pluses and minuses are gathered by managers of this particular product. CEO just needs to fit those into company strategy.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I thought we were all making jokes about CEOs of various industries for a while....

I'm not just the president of the Hair Club for Men. I'm also a client.

I mean . . . CEO of a casket company hasn't used his company's product . . . yet. (And once he does, he won't be CEO any more.)

I'll be here all week.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Do you have any evidence of CEOs that were promoted from within the industry and have made decisions that have benefitted gamers? Is this evidence strong enough to suggest a trend, or is it possible that the office of CEO attracts specific personality types that only lead to maximising the company's success (at the cost of any other metrics)?

Have you heard of Sid Meier?

 

[Gori the Grey]

Doesn't have to use the product; shouldn't make a point of saying he doesn't.

 

[Gorbles]

Have you heard of Sid Meier?

The Director of Creative Development for Firaxis Games?

Sure I have. Not a CEO though.

Doesn't have to use the product; shouldn't make a point of saying he doesn't.

Why not? Who's reading these interview pieces specifically to get outraged by such admissions?

Like, c'mon, stop beating around the bush folks. If we all admit he doesn't have to use the product, then the entire argument is just optics. Are we all really, truly invested in the best optics for a CEO with regards to an interview piece? Is that where the good faith conversation sits? Not entirely sure it does.

Because I read a bunch of liked posts about how this betrays "contempt" for "consumers", you see. The goalposts have shifted considerably since then. Why?

 

[Gori the Grey]

Us?

 

[Gorbles]

If you're reading PC Gamer pieces for outrage, there are other websites that'll get you madder, faster

 

[Gori the Grey]

Didn't say I was outraged. Said he shouldn't say it. Pretend about your product that it's something everyone would want.