Age of Kotick

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

amaranth_dru:

...And one can't milk Blizzard forever... they're bound to die out some day, just like everything else.

I keep telling people that WoW is reaching the end of it's shelf life, and SC2 is already rotten.
Hell, ActiBLizz is telling people that WoW is going to start winding down in a few years.
Why does everyone think that WoW and CoD and GH and...'eh, no idea...are enough to keep a monster like ActiBlizz afloat?
It's a rule of any organism, if you don't grow, you die.

Samus:
Cutting up the three acts of a single-player game and selling each at full price.

Et tu, Samus?

Why do people keep insisting on this point? This is bullshit, and you know it.

SC2 is out, we know we didn't get a third of a game as SC2 is indeed pretty damn big for an RTS. Whether or not we'll pay full price for the "sequels" is something we DON'T KNOW, as Blizzard has never been very clear on it though it implied they would probably be priced as expansions.

All Blizzard did was announce 2 expansions in advance. They did nothing that other more well regarded developers hadn't done before.

SimuLord:
Have you BEEN to business school? I'm an accounting major. The people who are my peers are exactly like Kotick. Wouldn't know their ass from a hole in the ground, possess no imagination or initiative whatsoever, and are taught from Day One to do exactly what Kotick is doing. Reduce risk, provide steady returns, create business models that analysts outside their industries can readily understand.

Which boils down to "encourage investment, give stockholders good dividends, fuck everyone else"... Which is fine from a business/investment POV but not so good if you're a consumer or employee.

But you're right... what sounds like distilled stupidity and greed to gamers is good copy for people who've seen the numbers thrown around about the size of the industry these days and looking to invest for a good return. If the people who own shares of the company don't give a fuck about games and the people looking to become the same don't either, then why should the execs hired to run the company for the benefit of those people?

End of the day, though, doesn't matter if you tell people you're sodomising the goose that laid the golden egg because it'll make it so that it can lay those eggs faster, it's still pretty rough on the goose.

Brotherofwill:

He really dropped the ball with the IW fiasco, but he made up for it. Guess who they have in place instead of IW now? Bungie. So much for attracting good talent to Activision. Now they can create original, sequel worthy games.

And with a competent CEO, Activision would have IW AND Bungie.

How do you like him now?

Tenmar:
Very nice article. Consumers who play games need to realize that at the end of the day we need to acknowledge that Kotick is on our side when representing the video game industry. Drama always happens and the drama that gets Kotick that resentment is only internal that really doesn't affect the consumer directly.

What? How does it not affect the consumer to pay more for less? It affects the customer very directly.

Do people know that Kotick and Activision is on our side for the Supreme court case ensuring that video games are protected under free speech?

Just because you and the devil see eye to eye on one particular issue, does not make him your 'friend'.

Sure Kotick wants to advertise the Call of Duty series but you'd be damned sure that Kotick will easily prop up the real mascots of the video game industry like Mario and show dissenters that statistically that M rated games are the minority compared to E rated and T rated games.

So not only do you admit that Kotick doesn't have our interests at heart and is only looking out for himself, but even if that wasn't the case, those arguments are not gonna help our case in the supreme court. The case going before the supreme court is not to determine how much of the games industry is rated E, M, or T, it's to determine whether or not video games are a harmful substance to be regulated and censored, or art to be left alone like TV and movies.

But at the end of the day you have to know who your allies are and for that despite being drama creator Kotick is on our side.

No, he really isn't on our side. He's like a vampire, saving you from getting hit by a truck so that he can drag you into the shadows and bleed you dry.

Xocrates:

Samus:
Cutting up the three acts of a single-player game and selling each at full price.

Et tu, Samus?

Why do people keep insisting on this point? This is bullshit, and you know it.

SC2 is out, we know we didn't get a third of a game as SC2 is indeed pretty damn big for an RTS. Whether or not we'll pay full price for the "sequels" is something we DON'T KNOW, as Blizzard has never been very clear on it though it implied they would probably be priced as expansions.

All Blizzard did was announce 2 expansions in advance. They did nothing that other more well regarded developers hadn't done before.

Actually, no.
They announced a full game, then (after Activision made them their bitch), they announced they were splitting it into three games. Does it really matter if other two thirds of the game are full price, or slightly less? (Remember, it's ActiBlizz we're talking about here -you know, the guys that price WoW ExPs HIGHER than the original game- they're gonna be full price).
Also, SC2 is not "pretty damn big for an RTS". It's got a "pretty damn long campaign for an RTS", no LAN, crappy matchmaking system, no lobby, castrated multiplayer units/buildings...oh, and it's got FUCKING FACEBOOK INTEGRATION (the ultimate sin of them all).
Also, the fact that this fuck-you to the consumers happened more then a week ago doesn't mean it's still not exactly as true as when they announced it, their BS excuses about "wanting to develop more content" notwithstanding.

So, before you run to their rescue, remember who they have to bow to.

No, he really isn't on our side. He's like a vampire, saving you from getting hit by a truck so that he can drag you into the shadows and bleed you dry.

Actually, I was thinking more of the guy who saves you from a beatdown in prison, just so he can take you to his cell and show you how stuff REALLY works there...
Also, about being on the same side as ol' Bob...hey, the Taliban actually were on the same side as me during the Soviet occupation of their country. Didn't agree with them then, don't plan to start now.

RDubayoo:

Brotherofwill:

He really dropped the ball with the IW fiasco, but he made up for it. Guess who they have in place instead of IW now? Bungie. So much for attracting good talent to Activision. Now they can create original, sequel worthy games.

And with a competent CEO, Activision would have IW AND Bungie.

How do you like him now?

I don't like the guy. I hate the guy, but that has nothing to do with what I said earlier. I just doubt he's completely worthless at his job.

...and about the IW/Activision thing: Every conflict has 2 sides. I doubt it was all Kotick's fault just like I doubt that the flower childs of IW didn't have anything to do with it. He fucked up but he redeemed it with the signing of Bungie.

Shamus Young:

This week John Funk said in his Twitter feed, "Let's be honest here. We could write the news story 'Bobby Kotick Opens Door for Old Lady' and people would *still* be furious with him."

That's because he kicked the old lady through the door for having grandchildren that play videogames, then stole her purse to make a point.

Either way, enjoying article. Getting through all the links took me a while.

Brotherofwill:

RDubayoo:

Brotherofwill:

He really dropped the ball with the IW fiasco, but he made up for it. Guess who they have in place instead of IW now? Bungie. So much for attracting good talent to Activision. Now they can create original, sequel worthy games.

And with a competent CEO, Activision would have IW AND Bungie.

How do you like him now?

I don't like the guy. I hate the guy, but that has nothing to do with what I said earlier. I just doubt he's completely worthless at his job.

...and about the IW/Activision thing: Every conflict has 2 sides. I doubt it was all Kotick's fault just like I doubt that the flower childs of IW didn't have anything to do with it. He fucked up but he redeemed it with the signing of Bungie.

Yes...every conflict DOES indeed have two sides. Just so happens that in this case one side got fucked over and the other one didn't even bother to apply some lube.

Also, if I screw an employee over, hiring a replacement doesn't redeem me in the slightest.
I'm exactly the same dick I was before.

Quaidis:

Shamus Young:

This week John Funk said in his Twitter feed, "Let's be honest here. We could write the news story 'Bobby Kotick Opens Door for Old Lady' and people would *still* be furious with him."

That's because he kicked the old lady through the door for having grandchildren that play videogames, then stole her purse to make a point.

Either way, enjoying article. Getting through all the links took me a while.

Actually, he bought the door, kicked the lady through it, then sued her for property damage, then stole her purse.

I'm afraid I have to disagree massively with you on this article.

1. He should be exceptional at coming up with new business ideas.

Not necessarily. As a CEO he needs to keep a broader view of the entire company and all its parts. It becomes Kotick's job to identify the good ideas, which he should help foster within Activision-Blizzard (AB), and then finds ways to implement then. Kotick is dealing with a huge businesses and it would be almost impossible for him to manage these directly, which is why he would have advisors. This is particularly evident in AB as in the recent interview he even mentions that his only contact with Brutal Legend and its development was through someone else. Granted he should be able to come up with ideas to take the business forward, and I imagine that he played a considerably part in the Activision Vivendi merger, which is why he was elected to CEO of the subsequent merged company. All because we only here about the 'bad' ideas which spawn within AB doesn't mean there aren't good ones. Kotick been a CEO in Activision since 1991 all the way up to it overtaking EA as the largest publisher.

2. He should be good at finding and attracting talent, and at inspiring and motivating his people.

This is not an issue for Activision, as Kotick highlights in the recent Edge interview, Infinity Ward received 5,000 CVs in the last six months. Although the 38 employees that left them was a big blow, there certainty wasn't a shortage to replace them. As a massive publisher with a numerous subsidiary developers they would have the ability to pick from the best of the market, as people would want to work for them, even if it's only for a few years to beef up their CVs. This happened despite all the bad publicity they receive about working conditions.

Looking at the first of companies which Activision bought prior to the big merger, [ur]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activision#Current[/url], they bought a load of good studios. Although it is a risk, as it is with any business when buying a external studios, that the culture will clash with that of the acquirer However, Activision are seemingly doing a good job because if they weren't they wouldn't of produced game like Singularity, Prototype, DJ Hero and Blur. Although they may not be the best, they were still decent games with their fans.

In the press side Kotick's ability to motivate people may be a bit lacking, but not being privy to all of Activision's internal memos and emails, I wouldn't dare speculate of what happens and how the structure works. I worked for a big company and it was always funny to see how the press/public perceive your actions.

3. He needs to possess a keen understanding of the gaming industry.

He does. In the Edge review it goes through his history in the market, which was why he was able to make criticisms of EA structure. He could do this from had first hand experience. Again, he was probably instrumental in the merger to create Activision-Blizzard and he also had the knowledge not to mess with Blizzard and its IPs (Starcraft 2 and Cataclysm don't full short of Blizzard traditional standards). He also notes in the Edge interview that Blizzard hasn't increased the subscription since its beginning, something which Kotick could easily do if he wanted.

Yes, he has arguably made lots of gaffs recently, but that doesn't change the fact he has been CEO in Activision since 1991 and then in the merger . You don't last this long by being an idiot and not knowing the market. Again, he would also have advisors, because it would be impossible for him to juggle AB whilst keeping up-to-date on the day-to-day news in the industry.

Remember when Kotick said that, "With respect to the franchises that don't have the potential to be exploited every year across every platform with clear sequel potential that can meet our objectives of over time becoming $100 million plus franchises, that's a strategy that has worked very well for us."

I interpret this quote differently. To me he saying "we don't green light new IPs unless it has opportunities for sequels." This is not saying "we don't green light new IP FULL STOP." To me, they are merely on the lookout for games which are intended to be created as Trilogies (such as Mass Effect with EA and Gears of War). They don't just want single stand alone games. Also, remember that Activision were the ones that funded Brutal legend's development, although they dropped it because of Schafer's, alleged, inability to meet deadlines, they still took the initial risk on it.

4. He should be skilled at public relations.

To be fair the PR department clearly have an impossible task here. Being one of the few people who seemingly read the entire Edge interview with Kotick, I felt that, overall, he came out of it quite well. It was just that sites would only report what a couple of lines from the interview and out of context. People assumed Kotick was just bad-mouthing people when in reality he was merely responding to questions. Edge brought up his relationship with developers, which prompted the response about Schafer. Edge brought up Infinity Ward, which prompted a response (and I might add we can't be certain about what truly went on here).

But to sum it up, you started with Funk's quote and I'll end on it.

"Let's be honest here. We could write the news story 'Bobby Kotick Opens Door for Old Lady' and people would *still* be furious with him."

It doesn't matter what happens with AB, Kotick has become the face of it and any bad piece bad news or misinterpreted quote always get directed back to him. Rightly or wrongly. We in the general populace are not privy to all his day-to-day functions and can't really make an accurate assessment of him. But we do know he's been the CEO of Activision which, arguably, overtook EA as the largest publisher. You don't achieve that by being an idiot. Any number of incompetent CEO would have destroyed Activision and Blizzard, but both are seemingly prospering right now.

This might be a bit messy because I didn't write the points in order. And, no, I don't work for Activision in case anyone cares.

The one and only problem I have with Kotic is his cut and dry business attitude. When someone as powerful as he (in the industry) decides to set a trend. Everyone and their dog follow it.

Yes I understand this is how money squeezers think. And I actually kind of respect him for vocalising what he's thinking. Most companies are all 'U gaiz iz da bestes. We's dooz whatver u saeys! Coz yous is awesome an maed of candi' When what they really mean is, 'This is a really cheap product and will net us trillions. God were you born in a funny farm you fucking sheep?'

Kotic just say's the second part in public. I respect the little fucker for that.

What I'm pissed off about is that his company ignores fringe indi developers like the fucking plague. And nom's up anyone with a generic FPS idea... Because it's safe.

I understand that it's safe. I understand that from a business perspective that's about as mouth watering Angelina Jolie in spandex with the crotch and nipple areas cut off.

I'd just rather they spend at-least some of their enormous budget on funding some smaller companies with a bit of a different idea.

erztez:

Quaidis:

Shamus Young:

This week John Funk said in his Twitter feed, "Let's be honest here. We could write the news story 'Bobby Kotick Opens Door for Old Lady' and people would *still* be furious with him."

That's because he kicked the old lady through the door for having grandchildren that play videogames, then stole her purse to make a point.

Either way, enjoying article. Getting through all the links took me a while.

Actually, he bought the door, kicked the lady through it, then sued her for property damage, then stole her purse.

Ah, that does make more sense than what I heard. But I swore it had something to do with the lady's grandchildren playing video games...

erztez:

Actually, no.
They announced a full game, then (after Activision made them their bitch), they announced they were splitting it into three games. Does it really matter if other two thirds of the game are full price, or slightly less? (Remember, it's ActiBlizz we're talking about here -you know, the guys that price WoW ExPs HIGHER than the original game- they're gonna be full price).
Also, SC2 is not "pretty damn big for an RTS". It's got a "pretty damn long campaign for an RTS", no LAN, crappy matchmaking system, no lobby, castrated multiplayer units/buildings...oh, and it's got FUCKING FACEBOOK INTEGRATION (the ultimate sin of them all).
Also, the fact that this fuck-you to the consumers happened more then a week ago doesn't mean it's still not exactly as true as when they announced it, their BS excuses about "wanting to develop more content" notwithstanding.

So, before you run to their rescue, remember who they have to bow to.

Adjusting for Inflation, you are paying the same exact amount for content today in Starcraft 2 as you did in 1997 for the original Starcraft and its expansions.

Formula: (The average price of goods has risen approximately 50% since 1997)
So...$40 (original price for Starcraft 1) * 1.5 (150%) = $60
Its expansion was priced around $35 on launch, plus or minus $5 based on retail rates and promotional events (I actually received a $5 return for pre-ordering, and the pre-order didn't cost me anything then. Funny how the world changes like that).

However...

It's when Blizzard started chopping features out of Starcraft 2 entirely (for example, LAN) that the comparable value begins to fall.
Compounding this: The intentions of Bnet 2.0 are insidious at best, the new monetized features are almost completely worthless even in comparison to Warcraft 3's system, and this necessity to be connected to the internet to play skirmishes against the AI on your own fucking computer is beyond paranoid (yes, this was done to fight piracy); it's tasteless.

Were it not for all that, I'd say that those who believe that "Split 1 game into 3!" argument were being closed-minded at best. Sadly, that is not the case. Blizzard is prospering, but I don't think we will ever see the same kind of great quality and value that they used to produce.

Javex:
I bet Shamus could run the shit out of that company. In a good way.

I know I'm really late on this one, but can the CEO of a major corporation be elected? It's an appointed position by shareholders right? If you appeal to the shareholders, and you're the ones that routinely give them the money they're interested in...

I for one am totally ready to become a Day 1 customer of any game produced by "Shamus Young's Activision"

Can somebody make a "I'd Vote for Shamus" Forum badge/ group?... this needs a little momentum.

Oh and Kotick is just a nice target guys, he's not a disease, just a symptom. Old-school business models (in this case, book publishing I believe) slapped on to an entirely new medium. It's a bad fit since books don't take 10 million bucks and hundreds of people to produce. Until the industry finds its own model this is how it is: It's messy, it's ugly and it's full of people looking to screw us.

So, after he saves our asses at the California "Free Speech" trial, how long until he goes away?

Atmos Duality:

Adjusting for Inflation, you are paying the same exact amount for content today in Starcraft 2 as you did in 1997 for the original Starcraft and its expansions.

Formula: (The average price of goods has risen approximately 50% since 1997)
So...$40 (original price for Starcraft 1) * 1.5 (150%) = $60
Its expansion was priced around $35 on launch, plus or minus $5 based on retail rates and promotional events (I actually received a $5 return for pre-ordering, and the pre-order didn't cost me anything then. Funny how the world changes like that).

That's absolutely correct, wasn't talking about SC2 though. I was talking about WoW. The expansions for THAT cost more then the goddamn original game...which is frankly retarded, but hey, I'd still take it like the bitch I am if the ExPs(I'm looking at you Cataclysm) were actually any good.

However...

It's when Blizzard started chopping features out of Starcraft 2 entirely (for example, LAN) that the comparable value begins to fall.
Compounding this: The intentions of Bnet 2.0 are insidious at best, the new monetized features are almost completely worthless even in comparison to Warcraft 3's system, and this necessity to be connected to the internet to play skirmishes against the AI on your own fucking computer is beyond paranoid (yes, this was done to fight piracy); it's tasteless.

And the funny fact? It didn't even work. You can play skirmish games just fine on the pirated version, and there's even a LAN mod in the works...
Bnet 2.0 is of the devil, and not in a good way. It is, by far, the most useless piece of bloatware ever to see the darkness of a basement dwellers dungeon. And that's counting M$ Office.

Were it not for all that, I'd say that those who believe that "Split 1 game into 3!" argument were being closed-minded at best. Sadly, that is not the case. Blizzard is prospering, but I don't think we will ever see the same kind of great quality and value that they used to produce.[/quote]

Amen to that, I'd support the split if I knew that Blizzard was actually behind the idea. I'm not so sure about that.(Read: I fucking well know they weren't).

Crunchy English:

I know I'm really late on this one, but can the CEO of a major corporation be elected? It's an appointed position by shareholders right? If you appeal to the shareholders, and you're the ones that routinely give them the money they're interested in...

I for one am totally ready to become a Day 1 customer of any game produced by "Shamus Young's Activision"

Can somebody make a "I'd Vote for Shamus" Forum badge/ group?... this needs a little momentum.

Thing is, ActiBlizz shareholders don't give a flying fuck about our opinions. What they DO give a fuck about is that most of us still keep forking over our hard(or easy)earned cash for whatever cut-down piece of crap Bob decides to let us have.

Oh and Kotick is just a nice target guys, he's not a disease, just a symptom. Old-school business models (in this case, book publishing I believe) slapped on to an entirely new medium. It's a bad fit since books don't take 10 million bucks and hundreds of people to produce.

Read any Stephanie Myers books lately?:P
Just saying:)

Until the industry finds its own model this is how it is: It's messy, it's ugly and it's full of people looking to screw us.

That's actually a pretty fitting description of the planet Earth right there.

erztez:

And you couldn't PAY me to play Guitar Hero, I still think of a guitar as a piece of wood/plastic with metal strings that make sounds while you pluck them.

I will agree with everything else you said, but by christ, I take issue with this one.

Guitar hero, no matter who makes money off of it, is built for a bit of arcade fun. FUN. F. U. N. A bit of multiplayer among friends. Some enjoyable high-score climbing, all while listening to - and using your controller to the beat of - some awesome music. Do you have any arguments against buying it other than "Activision's evil empire will get more money" that are valid? because I'm pretty sure that "feh, well, it's just for losers who can't be arsed playing the real guitar! *snort snort*" Doesn't actually count, considering that... well, it isn't.

But then, what would you know? you never actually played it.

dathwampeer:
The one and only problem I have with Kotic is his cut and dry business attitude. When someone as powerful as he (in the industry) decides to set a trend. Everyone and their dog follow it.

Yes I understand this is how money squeezers think. And I actually kind of respect him for vocalising what he's thinking. Most companies are all 'U gaiz iz da bestes. We's dooz whatver u saeys! Coz yous is awesome an maed of candi' When what they really mean is, 'This is a really cheap product and will net us trillions. God were you born in a funny farm you fucking sheep?'

Kotic just say's the second part in public. I respect the little fucker for that.

What I'm pissed off about is that his company ignores fringe indi developers like the fucking plague. And nom's up anyone with a generic FPS idea... Because it's safe.

I understand that it's safe. I understand that from a business perspective that's about as mouth watering Angelina Jolie in spandex with the crotch and nipple areas cut off.

I'd just rather they spend at-least some of their enormous budget on funding some smaller companies with a bit of a different idea.

Hot damn, another chance to use this. What am I at now, like 5?

image

Ahem.

You have to understand : Indie = risk. FPS = low risk. Lower the risk, lower the return, but theres still going to be a good return.
Lower the risk, longer the life of the company. The company obviously won't prosper, but they won't instantly die out, it'll go rather slowly.

lacktheknack:
So, after he saves our asses at the California "Free Speech" trial, how long until he goes away?

Well, after he saves our collective asses from the frying pan trial, he's got a cozy spot down in the burner, center-stage for him, holes for us, to lead us straight into his fire, then sue us for tainting it.

Bah, hit post once, it submits two... Escapist forum must of loved my statement.

erztez:
[
Amen to that, I'd support the split if I knew that Blizzard was actually behind the idea. I'm not so sure about that.(Read: I fucking well know they weren't).

.

Rage.

Okay, tell me this. Have you played mass effect? Any game with a sequel?

Okay, lets talk mass effect. Would you seriously think it's fair to only pay 60$ for both one and two? The same damn thing applies to starcraft, and almost every sequel. If you played starcraft 2, you know damn well that it's a long game, and isn't easily finished in a single sitting.

And getting angry about removing lan? come on, it's not that big of a deal, and i'm sure it'll be back, along with a plethora of old bnet 1.0 features soon.

On an almost unrelated note. Where I come from (New Zealand) we *are* charged for shopping bags at the grocery store.

InterAirplay:

erztez:

And you couldn't PAY me to play Guitar Hero, I still think of a guitar as a piece of wood/plastic with metal strings that make sounds while you pluck them.

I will agree with everything else you said, but by christ, I take issue with this one.

Guitar hero, no matter who makes money off of it, is built for a bit of arcade fun. FUN. F. U. N. A bit of multiplayer among friends. Some enjoyable high-score climbing, all while listening to - and using your controller to the beat of - some awesome music. Do you have any arguments against buying it other than "Activision's evil empire will get more money" that are valid? because I'm pretty sure that "feh, well, it's just for losers who can't be arsed playing the real guitar! *snort snort*" Doesn't actually count, considering that... well, it isn't.

But then, what would you know? you never actually played it.

Never said I didn't play it, we all make mistakes when hammered out of our minds.
Never said it's not a fun game(it's not fun for me, but neither's watching American Idol, and we all know people love THAT).
And no, I don't think people playing it are losers, same as I don't think people playing MW2 are losers just because they didn't skip the game, enlist, join the SF and go kick ass in Iraq.
They're games, playing them doesn't make you a loser. Also, I didn't spend 6 years learning to play the guitar to push a few shiny buttons:P

So, to sum up, there's two reasons I don't buy ActiBlizz...
1.)Their games bore me out of my skull
2.)I don't want the pressure of having supported their business model on my conscience.

Quaidis:

erztez:

Quaidis:

Shamus Young:

This week John Funk said in his Twitter feed, "Let's be honest here. We could write the news story 'Bobby Kotick Opens Door for Old Lady' and people would *still* be furious with him."

That's because he kicked the old lady through the door for having grandchildren that play videogames, then stole her purse to make a point.

Either way, enjoying article. Getting through all the links took me a while.

Actually, he bought the door, kicked the lady through it, then sued her for property damage, then stole her purse.

Ah, that does make more sense than what I heard. But I swore it had something to do with the lady's grandchildren playing video games...

That's Jack Thompson, not Kotick ;)

tryx3:

dathwampeer:
The one and only problem I have with Kotic is his cut and dry business attitude. When someone as powerful as he (in the industry) decides to set a trend. Everyone and their dog follow it.

Yes I understand this is how money squeezers think. And I actually kind of respect him for vocalising what he's thinking. Most companies are all 'U gaiz iz da bestes. We's dooz whatver u saeys! Coz yous is awesome an maed of candi' When what they really mean is, 'This is a really cheap product and will net us trillions. God were you born in a funny farm you fucking sheep?'

Kotic just say's the second part in public. I respect the little fucker for that.

What I'm pissed off about is that his company ignores fringe indi developers like the fucking plague. And nom's up anyone with a generic FPS idea... Because it's safe.

I understand that it's safe. I understand that from a business perspective that's about as mouth watering Angelina Jolie in spandex with the crotch and nipple areas cut off.

I'd just rather they spend at-least some of their enormous budget on funding some smaller companies with a bit of a different idea.

Hot damn, another chance to use this. What am I at now, like 5?

image

Ahem.

You have to understand : Indie = risk. FPS = low risk. Lower the risk, lower the return, but theres still going to be a good return.
Lower the risk, longer the life of the company. The company obviously won't prosper, but they won't instantly die out, it'll go rather slowly.

I've seen you use that comic before. It's irrelevant for one massive reason.

I never said 'am I the only one?' or indicated in anyway that I thought I was being original in saying what I did.

Plus I just hate that comic series.

It's pretentia.... It's over 9000.

As for you're comment. I'll direct you to the last part of my post.

I understand that it's safe.

I'd just rather they spend at-least some of their enormous budget on funding some smaller companies with a bit of a different idea.

So to summarise... Read better?

SimuLord:

Quaidis:

erztez:

Quaidis:

Shamus Young:

This week John Funk said in his Twitter feed, "Let's be honest here. We could write the news story 'Bobby Kotick Opens Door for Old Lady' and people would *still* be furious with him."

That's because he kicked the old lady through the door for having grandchildren that play videogames, then stole her purse to make a point.

Either way, enjoying article. Getting through all the links took me a while.

Actually, he bought the door, kicked the lady through it, then sued her for property damage, then stole her purse.

Ah, that does make more sense than what I heard. But I swore it had something to do with the lady's grandchildren playing video games...

That's Jack Thompson, not Kotick ;)

Nah, Thompson would've sued the lady for walking too fast and thus endangering the younger generation by displaying reckless disregard for her own safety. Also, for displaying too much ankle, and thus arousing said younger generation.

erztez:

Xocrates:

Samus:
Cutting up the three acts of a single-player game and selling each at full price.

Et tu, Samus?

Why do people keep insisting on this point? This is bullshit, and you know it.

SC2 is out, we know we didn't get a third of a game as SC2 is indeed pretty damn big for an RTS. Whether or not we'll pay full price for the "sequels" is something we DON'T KNOW, as Blizzard has never been very clear on it though it implied they would probably be priced as expansions.

All Blizzard did was announce 2 expansions in advance. They did nothing that other more well regarded developers hadn't done before.

Actually, no.
They announced a full game, then (after Activision made them their bitch), they announced they were splitting it into three games.

Activision has little to no input at Blizzard. Blizzard is capable of making mistakes under its own. This "blame Activision for everything bad Blizzard does" trend is incredibly stupid.

That said, I don't think the trilogy is a bad thing. Unless you are against every trilogy ever.

Does it really matter if other two thirds of the game are full price, or slightly less? (Remember, it's ActiBlizz we're talking about here -you know, the guys that price WoW ExPs HIGHER than the original game- they're gonna be full price).

How much was WoW at launch? And no, they're saying that they're treating them as expansions.

Also, SC2 is not "pretty damn big for an RTS". It's got a "pretty damn long campaign for an RTS", no LAN, crappy matchmaking system, no lobby, castrated multiplayer units/buildings...oh, and it's got FUCKING FACEBOOK INTEGRATION (the ultimate sin of them all).

It's got a huge campaign for an RTS with brilliantly designed levels that the folks at Relic and Petroglyph wish they could create (and I say this as someone who loves CoH and DoW). No LAN = eh. Matchmaking = just fine for what it's designed to do (give you a quick, relatively even match quickly). Lobby = coming. Castrated multiplayer units/buildings = What?

And... okay this last one? You are complaining about an optional feature that is by no means necessary and has no impact on the actual game itself? What the fuck? How spoiled or needlessly counter-culture are you?

Facebook integration means I found an old friend from high school who played SC2, we now do 2v2s every weekend; I'd have never found that otherwise. It's actually a really cool tool. Just because you don't use it doesn't mean it's "the ultimate sin of them all," and the fact that you're actually calling it that just makes you look like a spoiled and whining little kid.

Also, the fact that this fuck-you to the consumers happened more then a week ago doesn't mean it's still not exactly as true as when they announced it, their BS excuses about "wanting to develop more content" notwithstanding.

So, before you run to their rescue, remember who they have to bow to.

dathwampeer:

tryx3:

dathwampeer:
The one and only problem I have with Kotic is his cut and dry business attitude. When someone as powerful as he (in the industry) decides to set a trend. Everyone and their dog follow it.

Yes I understand this is how money squeezers think. And I actually kind of respect him for vocalising what he's thinking. Most companies are all 'U gaiz iz da bestes. We's dooz whatver u saeys! Coz yous is awesome an maed of candi' When what they really mean is, 'This is a really cheap product and will net us trillions. God were you born in a funny farm you fucking sheep?'

Kotic just say's the second part in public. I respect the little fucker for that.

What I'm pissed off about is that his company ignores fringe indi developers like the fucking plague. And nom's up anyone with a generic FPS idea... Because it's safe.

I understand that it's safe. I understand that from a business perspective that's about as mouth watering Angelina Jolie in spandex with the crotch and nipple areas cut off.

I'd just rather they spend at-least some of their enormous budget on funding some smaller companies with a bit of a different idea.

Hot damn, another chance to use this. What am I at now, like 5?

image

Ahem.

You have to understand : Indie = risk. FPS = low risk. Lower the risk, lower the return, but theres still going to be a good return.
Lower the risk, longer the life of the company. The company obviously won't prosper, but they won't instantly die out, it'll go rather slowly.

I've seen you use that comic before. It's irrelevant for one massive reason.

I never said 'am I the only one?' or indicated in anyway that I thought I was being original in saying what I did.

Plus I just hate that comic series.

It's pretentia.... It's over 9000.

As for you're comment. I'll direct you to the last part of my post.

I understand that it's safe.

I'd just rather they spend at-least some of their enormous budget on funding some smaller companies with a bit of a different idea.

So to summarise... Read better?

Saw the word sheep, buzz went off, had to post, add to my count of that, then to not appear as an ass, give some sort of reasoning to it, and bam. That's how I make one of those posts.
You must see, that when I see the word sheep, my brain is flooded with stimuli, and all of the sudden, I have to post that.

You can blame whoever posted it first, they started me on this.

Wait, you've seen me use it before? Awesome sauce, i've trained myself to find sheep so well now.

Also: You hate it? I don't read it, so no sweat off my back.

You must see, it's pretentiousness is essential to it's existence (The comic) Its a never ending loop, so long as people use the word sheep, so long as this comic will be relevant in my mind. Am I probably wrong? Hell yes I may be, does the count mean everything now that I made my own game out of it? You bet so.

In closing : My apologies for coming off as rude.

erztez:

InterAirplay:

erztez:

And you couldn't PAY me to play Guitar Hero, I still think of a guitar as a piece of wood/plastic with metal strings that make sounds while you pluck them.

I will agree with everything else you said, but by christ, I take issue with this one.

Guitar hero, no matter who makes money off of it, is built for a bit of arcade fun. FUN. F. U. N. A bit of multiplayer among friends. Some enjoyable high-score climbing, all while listening to - and using your controller to the beat of - some awesome music. Do you have any arguments against buying it other than "Activision's evil empire will get more money" that are valid? because I'm pretty sure that "feh, well, it's just for losers who can't be arsed playing the real guitar! *snort snort*" Doesn't actually count, considering that... well, it isn't.

But then, what would you know? you never actually played it.

They're games, playing them doesn't make you a loser. Also, I didn't spend 6 years learning to play the guitar to push a few shiny buttons:P

It's this I get annoyed at sometimes. Statements that make people sound like they think that they really don't have to go near Guitar hero cos they can play the REAL LIFE guitar, and that Guitar hero is in some way just a cheap replacement for that. it isn't trying to be. Come on, anyone can play guitar hero, granted, but anyone can play guitar as well.

tryx3:

Rage.

Okay, tell me this. Have you played mass effect? Any game with a sequel?

Okay, lets talk mass effect. Would you seriously think it's fair to only pay 60$ for both one and two? The same damn thing applies to starcraft, and almost every sequel. If you played starcraft 2, you know damn well that it's a long game, and isn't easily finished in a single sitting.

And getting angry about removing lan? come on, it's not that big of a deal, and i'm sure it'll be back, along with a plethora of old bnet 1.0 features soon.

Yes...yes I did.
And you know what? ME and ME2 were two separate games. SC2 and the ExPs aren't, thus rendering your point invalid. Let me make myself clearer...ME2 works fine without ME...HotS will most definitely NOT work right without SC2.
And no, it's not easily finished in a single sitting. But that's mostly because the cutscenes take FOREVER. I got the "Hurry up, it's raid night" achievement on Brutal, so...counting only game play, it's easy enough. (And no, I'm not admitting to buying the game a friend of mine managed to snag a few for almost nothing and was giving them away left and right. Paid exactly $0,tax incl. for it.)

No, LAN won't be back. They quite clearly stated several times that they have no INTENTION of bringing it back. Also, if you want to bring it back, why exactly did you take it away in the first place? Ditto for bnet 1.0...
As a matter of fact, the lack of a LAN mode IS a big goddamn deal, I actually like the occasional LAN party, having everyone have to go online to play is NOT my idea of a fun saturday evening...
Any game that requires internet connection to work in single-player/local network is bad. BAAAAAAAAAD.
Oh well, there's always the nice people who say "Arrrrrrr!" a lot, and they already made a few nice attempts at emulating a bnet 2.0 server. LAN soon enough, just not from ActiBLizz.

Flamma Man:
I just read the history of Activison since Kotick's been there and...damn.

He's a bigger asshole than I thought.

Bigger than goatse's, I suppose... :P

Having Kotick with them is much more nasty for their public image! I say sack the man up!

So how long do you think it will be before Kotick makes an ass out of himself with some kind of reply to this article?

InterAirplay:
It's this I get annoyed at sometimes. Statements that make people sound like they think that they really don't have to go near Guitar hero cos they can play the REAL LIFE guitar, and that Guitar hero is in some way just a cheap replacement for that. it isn't trying to be.

Well not Guitar Hero, not yet. But Rock Band is (see Rock Band 3), and pretty soon Guitar Hero will follow along in Rock Band's footsteps.

InterAirplay:

It's this I get annoyed at sometimes. Statements that make people sound like they think that they really don't have to go near Guitar hero cos they can play the REAL LIFE guitar, and that Guitar hero is in some way just a cheap replacement for that. it isn't trying to be. Come on, anyone can play guitar hero, granted, but anyone can play guitar as well.

True, true. Anyone can play MW2, and anyone can shoot a machine gun. Doesn't mean one qualifies you in any way for the other:P
About the guitar thing, I'm not saying learning how to play a guitar is in any way a defining quality in a "non-loser"...More the opposite, matter of fact. But I don't play GH because I find it boring, not because I think playing a guitar is more fun(it is for ME, but I can't really be objective on the matter).

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here