[Willish42]

"doubling down" indeed...

One possible interpretation of events is that he was ousted not for the initial proposal and backlash but precisely for how he backtracked after the fact -- perhaps the board gave a clear mandate and Riccitiello was unable to successfully change pricing structure to match financial expectations. That would explain the replacement.

Things aren't looking great for Unity right now...

[strgcmc]

I think that's reading too much into, what is fundamentally a very normal and common way of dealing with CEO turnover -- appoint a safe, business-friendly steward of a CEO, while you stabilize the crisis and decide who the real long-term leader should be.

The word "interim" was clearly used, and there's no hint in the PR statement about this being a permanent appointment. So I don't think it's reasonable to equate this to a clear doubling down of anything.

At the same time, a guy like Whitehurst is a safe, relatively unimpeachable medium term choice, not like someone you'd use for a truly short interim 30-90 days while you execute an executive search quickly. If you need him for 1-2 years of just don't rock the boat leadership, it'll probably work out fine for the company and the board would be satisfied.

[cojo]

Yeah, I think this could definitely be one explanation.

Other commenters in the thread have also given good thoughts / potential scenarios in similar veins - essentially that this was actually a failure of messaging, sticking to the plan, and / or both, plus some other combination of "no, seriously, we need to make money and become profitable, nothing else matters as long as the boat still floats, make it happen and keep this ship going."

And I do suspect that Whitehurst will likely be a better fit for that. A seasons gaming industry executive (regardless of investor / revenue focus) may actually be a negative if that's the goal right now... I'll be very interested to see how this all turns out.

[phire]

Boards don't micromanage to that level (or more, they shouldn't)

There might have been an explicit mandate that Unity's pricing structure should be changed, but more likely it was just an explicit or implicit mandate that the Unity division should produce more revenue (or profit).

The actual details of how to achieve that mandate would be left up to Riccitiello and his management team.

My interoperation is that while the board probably agrees with the need to change Unity's pricing structure, Riccitiello is being ousted for the poor implementation with a proposal that generated so much backlash and then some pretty poor handling of that backlash.