I'm glad it came out as it did. | |
If wonder, if CoD4 was in WW2, what setting Treyarch would have put the 5th installment in. | |
Haha, wow. Nice one Activision. Just imagine if you'd gotten your way... | |
Not really a risk based story. It doesn't surprise me however considering Kotick's philosophy to only exploit games that can be million dollar franchises. Risk is needed when creating a video game because video games are a lot like writing books. They can be about anything and there will be a group that will want to play the game. The only problem we have is that the industry is so much more business focused(middle management) that risk is thrown out and only ideas that target specific demographics make the cut. This is the American way of doing business. | |
I love the fact they thought an original idea was crazy. Stupid dicks... Oops, did that come out? Seems I may still be a little angry they sparked the UK price hike. | |
I don't think that's necessarily true. Yes, there's a group that will want to play every game. But if it's a top-tier title with an AAA budget of millions and millions of dollars, then you have to make sure that a *lot* of people want to play the game, or you've wasted your money. | |
I can totally understand Activisions hesitation in this. I mean, for the most part, the modern setting in FPS games has been a stale experience, with a very few exceptions. That has a lot to do with developers not getting the feel and the weapons right, at least not in a fun way. They usually either emphasize too much on accuracy or the feeling is just completely off. World War 2 seems to be an easier market to nail, despite how bored gamers are getting with it. Glad that IF was able to take that chance, though! Because the results were way too good. | |
Well, point for Infinity Ward, if it weren't for them, we would be having Call of Duty 8: Now Even More Stalingrad coming in November/December. | |
Yet further proof that Activision are evil! | |
Yet another point taken away from Activision...but in their defense, it's a bit of a sudden shift, changing the whole series' focus from WWII to the current day. And there's the fact that | |
They were doing market research how exactly? In fact, it was the only reason I ended up playing it. If it was WW2, I would've passed. | |
Wow, this is rather comic, I can't believe that they nearly lost out on the most prophitable COD game yet, until the new MW2 | |
Hindsight is 20/20, who is to say that COD4 40's Era Warfare wouldn't have been the greatest World War 2 game to date in that it would single-handedly close that genre for all time. While it's amusing to think that Activision didn't want a game that went on to be a great success, that's doesn't mean that it wouldn't have been as much of a success as a World War II game either. | |
What is true though is that extremity in either direction is self destructive. Kotick's business is the business of fear, he even admitted it in one of your stories. They make ONLY what works and do not move to advance the industry. To stagnate is to die, your product will remain commercially viable for a time but eventually someone will advance past you and you'll be playing catchup. To say nothing of consumer backlash. Meanwhile, experimental games have high risk of not returning on their investment, or alienating the consumer. Incrimental, meaningful change is necessary. Activision is just shy of this in most of it's series, holding products in reserve in order to capitalize on them financially. | |
Same. Hell, I never rally wanted it, the only reason I got it was because all my friends had it and wouldn't play anything else. | |
"we always wanted to be on consoles." | |
Seeing that Activision is now a Guitar Hero license mill, not surprising that they would stifle change. | |
I don't see how this is a point taken away from Activision: to be honest, MW could easily have been a major flop, especially with the "THIS IS NOT AFGANISTAN" American missions. Remember the backlash that that Fallujah game received, to the point where it was dropped? That's what Activision feared. They were likely terrified of people drawing the parallel, because stuff involving/loosely based on current military conflicts had all the sellability of a dead badger. Infinity Ward managed to dodge the bullet by making some random Russian terrorists the REAL culprits behind everything, but Modern Warfare was certainly a title with risks involved. | |
Market research to show how to fail one of the best series? They should just let Infinity ward fo what they want to do. | |
Shows how much Activision knows. | |
Still...Activision may be partially right... The developers said they wanted CoD2 to be Modern Warfare...but that was 2005...and in lieu of the Iraq War and events like Abu Ghraib...could you really say it was the best time for a game about Americans going to the Middle East to save the day? Activision wasn't right to demand that every CoD game be on WW2...but perhaps the fact that Modern Warfare was delayed just long enough is part of its success... Just saying...what do you all think? | |
Is there any surprise that "market research" shows that people want "more of the same?" If I were to ask you what kind of game you like, you'd say your favorite title and talk about it's cool features, then I'd make a soulless copy and you'd hate it. But if I were to ask you what surprises you, what cool new idea would you like to see in a game, you'd likely come up empty. Because people don't know what the hell they like. It takes risks like these (the fact that making a modern FPS was considered a risk just a few years ago is astounding) to keep the gaming industry going. What's funny is that Activision will likely never let Infinity Ward make anything other than modern-themed shooters now, even after the horse has been dead and beaten for a good while. The suits never see the future, only the past. | |
Thank god. Activision is really seeming like a big "Har har, I'm so rich, I can do anything" kind of company. | |
they're everything people think EA is, +blatent greed! | |
Why am I reminded somewhat of the story with Halo Multiplayer? You know the one where Bungie said that had to convince Microsoft to let them spend more time to develpo Halo's multiplayer? | |
I really am not surprised. churning out 8 guitar hero games this year, they don't really seem like a trend setting company. let's not forget the lawsuit over Brutal Legends, where they realized "oops, we might have a little bit of brain damage for letting that one slip." my general opinion is to go the opossite of anything activision now, especially because after the blizzard merger, they should be telling their developers, "Hey, do whatever you want! we have ten million people paying us $15 a month! we're just bathing in gold! who cares if your games flop!?" | |
"We always wanted to be on consoles" doesn't mean they ONLY wanted to be on consoles, just that they wanted to branch out more. Oh and sorry to burst your bubble but the PC version was delayed just recently, it will be released 2 weeks after the console version. =/ | |
Just proves that Activision is greedy and evil to me. | |
Well these are the same people that dumped brutal legend but kept spryo and ice age, I honestly think they are a bit out of it | |
Then how do you explain the PC version lacking certain aspects, and the delay. | |
Is the court case over the rights of the modern warfare name still going on? because this sound awfully like ammo for Respawn industry's argument. showing that activision originally didn't want a modern FPS and are only fighting for the title because of the huge income attached to the name sounds like a good addition to their case. | |
Extra Punctuation
MovieBob: Intermission
Experienced Points
First Person
Exploding Barrels
Miracle of Sound: Encore
Loading Time
Special Attack
Backchat
Drinking Games
Escape to the Movies
Escapecraft
Escapist News Wrap - Premium
Escapist Podcast
Feed Dump
GinxTV
Jimquisition
LoadingReadyRun
Mahalo
Meatbag and Co
Media Sandwich
Miracle of Sound
No Right Answer
Pro-Gamer Gauntlet
Reviews
Space Janitors
Tales from the Table
The Big Picture
The Escapist Presents
The Retro Show
Trailers
Unskippable
Zero Punctuation
Max Payne 3 Review
Company of Heroes 2
XCOM Enemy Unknown
Black Ops 2
Diablo 3 Review
TERA Review
Firefall Beta Preview
Starhawk Review
Critical Miss
Name Game
Activision Originally Didn't Want Modern Warfare
Infinity Ward had to fight to be able to make Call of Duty 4 a modern FPS, say members of the studio's top brass: publisher Activision wanted another World War II game.
Let's file this under "dodging a bullet," for the moment: Infinity Ward has revealed that its publisher, Activision, tried desperately to dissuade them from making a "modern warfare" game. In the latest issue of Official PlayStation Magazine, studio boss Vince Zampella said that the team had wanted to make a modern combat game since the second Call of Duty:
"With Call of Duty 2, we were dead set against it being World War 2," said Zampella, "but Activision really wanted it, the compromise sort of being that we'd get some dev kits for consoles in exchange for doing a World War 2 game ... [we] always wanted to be on consoles and Activision saw us as more of a PC developer."
The reason for this, of course, was that Activision wasn't convinced that a modern combat FPS would sell well at all. "They thought working on a modern game was risky and [thought], 'oh my god you can't do that, it's crazy!' They were doing market research to show us we were wrong the whole time," Zampella explained.
Of course, we know how that story ended up. CoD4 went on to be one of the most popular games of all time, selling 14 million copies and topping review charts across the board, with a hugely anticipated sequel a little over a month away. The gamble paid off for both Activision and Infinity ward - but it almost never happened at all.
Guess everybody should be a little bit thankful for that bit of luck.
(Via CVG)
Permalink