Hmm, as much as I'd like to say yes, and I do hate Kotick, I'm going to say no.
I have bought very few Activision games and boycotting them entirely would not matter that much to me, however, after a bit of thinking, I am starting to see Kotick as more of a figurehead for Activision.
I think the board knows that a lot of people hate him, who doesn't?, so why don't they get rid of him? Simple, he's a figurehead and a scapegoat of sorts. It i Kotick that people instantly blame as soon as Activision does something wrong, however, considering the board could get rid of him at will, I believe they might also hold some reasonable degree of control over the company, and its decisions. If they really had a problem with Kotick's practices, they would give him a warning, or boot him. They haven't. Yes, they still make lots of money, but look at EA. When the company does something wrong, we don't blame John Riccitiell, we blame EA.
The board uses Kotick as a scapegoat as far as I'm concerned, and thus booting him out would just result in his replacement with another one. If I am going to boycott Activision, its not going to be to make them fire someone, its going to be to make them care about the user, not how much they earn (Though I do not mind if the want to make some profit, using every exploit in the book to earn as much money as possible for as little cost as possible whilst not caring for the consumer, just so that they don't make a sustainable profit, but make a massive profit that they can buy Switzerland with is just disrespectful to the consumer, and that is a practise that too many companies these days follow. I personally like Henry Ford's approach: 'There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible'.
