Aside from Jack Thomson, Activision CEO Bob Kotick is probably the most popular face for gamers to throw darts at. A quick scan of online news outlets shows that Kotick is frequently making the headlines, and being met with a smattering amount of criticism. To many he's the incarnation of pure corporate evil, but if Kotick is the Devil then who in the games industry is God?

I think the hate for Kotick is largely embellished by the press and gamers alike. Calling the man evil is a pretty blind accusation when you look at his competition. Sure he's out to make cash, and lots of it, but who in this industry isn't?

Even Kotick's 2008 earnings of $14 million were all over the news, causing wide repulsion at how stinking rich the bugger is. But if it's always popular to label the most successful people as greedy then I guess we need to catch up on Nintendo president Soturu Iwata. What were his earnings I wonder? Probably more than Kotick's.

Some of the things Kotick has gotten grilled for are statements like saying the price of games should be raised higher and that consumers prefer sequels to new IPs. These incidents have lead to his current image, but they've been largely misconstrued.

The first statement on raising prices was misreported, as Kotick was actually joking around during a conference call. As for the comment on gamers only wanting sequels, let me show you what he really said:

"A small segment of very vocal gamers say everything has to be new and different every year. Actually, people are happy with existing franchises, provided you innovate within them," said Kotick.

Here Kotick made a pretty exuberant statement. He was addressing a passionate segment of gamers that [he thought] wanted no sequels at all. He acknowledged the proper amount of care has to be put into improving a franchise, and that consumers are generally tolerant of sequels to games. Unfortunately these facts were eluded in Kotick's usual negative coverage in the press.

Kotick's other statements on how titles should be "exploited" on an annual basis got many people hot and bothered, which confuses me.

While Activision may be applying the idea of annual releases to more franchises, it's a practice that's well grounded in the games industry. Of course I'm talking about EA's Madden series, which has been released annually for eons. Then again EA is no longer on top of the publishing circuit, so I guess it's not fair to criticize them.

Everyone loves to call Activision greedy as hell, but they're not alone in doing everything they can to squeeze more money out of their top games. Take a look at Microsoft, who is releasing Halo 3 ODST (a glorified expansion pack) at full price to fans who have already bought the older map packs that come reissued on the disc.

The point is that all companies are working hard for your dollar.

I will admit that while Kotick is misinterpreted often, he does speak carelessly. After he used that icky word "exploit," I'm sure Activision's PR department performed a simultaneous face palm. The important thing is to remember that he's cut from the same cloth as any businessman in or out of the games industry, and they all share the same goal: profit. If gamers want to paint Kotick as El Diablo then they might as well do the same to every other CEO in the industry.