You're the one using "he can do this" as an argument.
Again, I never said anything about Morhaime "preventing something he had no say in". I simply pointed out the fact that Morhaime may not have been against the merge in the first place.the sentence:
Implies that you assume he had some sort of choice in the matter, which he quite frankly never had, he could only make the best out of the situation.
If it's not within his power to stop something, you can't really hold it against him that didn't stop that.
Unless you hold it against him that he didn't outright quit, which wouldn't have changed the course of Blizzard in that aspect.
Considering that Morhaime was apparently the pivotal opinion that swayed Kotick to go through with the merge, I'd say Morhaime had quite the say in this. He could have just, like you said, "stonewalled" Kotick, which would mean Activision would not merge with Vivendi, and "Activision-Blizzard" would not have happened...If a major shift in power is about to take place within the company, it's pretty natural that people try to play nice with the new bosses and not make some futile attempt to stonewall them without having any power to actually stop them taking over.
More meaningless arguments. What he "could do" is meaningless. Because Vivendi, who was the majority shareholder, could also have sold all of Activision's IPs, too. Not to mention that the whole point of the merge was because Activision wanted to get their hands on World of Warcraft.After all, Kotick and Co. could've just sold out Blizzard IP's, like they did with other companies they acquired.
No, it's nowhere near "fatalist". It would be "fatalist" if I said "and then his company will inevitably fail and close".Seems like a massive fatalist stance, like saying "Who cares about life, i'll die someday anyway".