What about Skylanders, Starcraft, Diablo, Guitar Hero and WoW? ActivisionBlizzard makes quite a few games, but very few of them are single player, narrative driven, console focused games at this point.
I think this tends to be the problem for many people. If you like big budget, epic, AAA single player games, then yes, EA was "better for gamers." Big projects for EA like Mass Effect, Dead Space, Dragon Age, and even Dante's Inferno focused much more on this big budget single player experience than almost any ActivisionBlizzard game this generation.
ActivisionBlizzard has a certain type of game they make, and so does EA. If ActivisionBlizzard struggled, that would be bad for multiplayer/socially focused gamers. Again, if you are a single player, narrative driven, AAA console person, then yes, EA is more important for your personal preferences and their struggles are not good for your tastes.
But I do not think one would say ActivisionBlizzard is "bad for gamers." Just bad for a particular type of gamer.
Didn't they kill Guitar Hero after running it into the ground by making more than one game year? So they have the annual COD game, the annual Skylanders game and toys, and the Blizzard games, which enthusiastically do everything people seem to hate about EA (DRM, always online, no steam, DLC and microtransactions). And he killed a bunch of games and studios along the way. Which part of that is good for gamers?
I think Kotick is a brilliant businessman, and if I were going to buy a video game stock ATVI would be the one, but I stand by my contention that he's no good for us.