However, something still disturbed me about that statement. And I finally realized what it is: it's NOT the only attitude a successful and driven CEO can have. In short, Bobby Kotick is no Steve Jobs.
Now, I'm not an Apple OR Big Business fanboy, but no one can deny this fact: Steve Jobs loves Apple. No matter how hard Steve Jobs plays the game and squeezes out profit, no matter how he exploits the iWhatever over and over again like it's a Jennifer Jason Leigh character--the way Activision *wish* they could exploit Call of Duty--Steve Jobs doesn't just want to succeed financially: he wants Apple to succeed *culturally*. His got a vision for Apple that goes beyond just the stock price: he's as much an Andy Warhol type figure--trying to turn pop image and everyday products into artistic statements--as he is a business tycoon.
Now, Kotick's excuse is that he's the 'business man' and he's herding all the 'vidja game' types into line, making the kids grow up and face the 'real world.' Well you know what--you don't have to be a soulless prick to succeed in the real world. Being a creative visionary and being a ruthless businessman is not a zero sum game. Whatever his other failings, Steve Jobs is proof of that.
Now, you might be asking why bother pointing all this out. The reason is that although the Bobby Kotick's of this world are bringing you great games right now like Modern Warfare 2 and (someday) StarCraft II,
you can bet your sweet Barack Obama unicorn riding ass
that if Bobby Kotick thought he *could* actually make more money by putting rainbow-farting unicorns in Diablo III
he would. Without a second thought. Now again: I'm not saying Steve Jobs is a saint, but Steve Jobs wants the Apple name to mean something. However Steve Jobs might look to screw the consumer, he's never going to decide to start selling "packaged goods" because that will turn a bigger profit.
Which brings me to, sorta, the point of this whole diatribe: even though people like Bobby Kotick are making profits by turning out really great games, are they good for our hobby long term? Or are they like those people who flooded into comic books and created an unstable bubble that almost sunk the industry (or even baseball cards)? I don't think it'll ever be that dire--video games aren't collectibles, they're entertainment media--but it *is* an area that is all the richer for having been niche all these years. Are we going to be left holding the bag when the Bobby Kotick's of the world decide to move on, with an impoverished gaming ecosystem because of all those years where the people who were just here for the profits were in charge?
Like I said: the whole dreamer/realist shtick Bobby Kotick is pulling is a false dichotomy. We need look no further than Steve Jobs to see that. I know gaming is Big Business now, and we need people with real management talent in charge of these companies. That doesn't mean we need to sell our soul to get them, though. And not only is that a fuzzy warm statement, it's the cold hard selfish truth that means we don't need people who aren't every bit as interested in making the games they sell great as in great game sales in order to survive as an industry as well as a hobby.
Cheeze_Pavilion: Don't ever let anyone ever tell you that to make it in 'the real world' you need to take the fun out of anything you want to do.
Too damn right. This business culture infests everything and corrupts everything it touches.
The last Activision game I have played was Prototype - this was the closest Activision have gotten to a revolutionary game that seeps fun at the seams. And, yet, it doesn't. It's a good game, I have to say I enjoyed it, but there was so much that matters to gameplay that was just missing.
Parts that look good in a demo or trailer, like karate kicking a helicopter out of the air, were great. Parts that make a real difference to the experience but can't be previewed, like bosses and storyline? They just felt soulless. Compare it to InFamous, the game it is (unjustly) compared to all the time, which has a beautiful atmosphere, boss fights that, while being nothing astounding, were fun breaks from normal gameplay (and not a hit+run chore), and a story I was honestly engrossed in, and you can see that while Kotick's strategy inflates his companies worth, it ruins the quality of the gaming industry.
It's like choosing whether to dedicate your TV channel to Big Brother or stand-up comedy. Everybody enjoys the latter more, but my god will the first earn the ratings and money.
benylor: and you can see that while Kotick's strategy inflates his companies worth, it ruins the quality of the gaming industry.
To borrow a concept from TV Tropes, the fear in letting in people who are Ruthless Businessmen who are not also Zealous Gamers (like Steve Jobs--whatever his failings--is no less an Apple Fanatic for all his concern with inflating his company's worth) is that game companies will transform over time like this:
Many cable channels are created to fulfill a specific programming niche. The Golf Channel shows golf, The History Channel shows history programs, and so on. Some channels, however, are not as wedded to their original concept as others. Meddling Executives look at the Demographics to whom their channel appeals, and decide that, hey, since the people watching their Speculative Fiction channel are mostly 18- to 31-year-old males, and Professional Wrestling is hot among that demographic, surely no one would mind if we started showing Professional Wrestling! (*cough cough*Syfy*cough*)
The fans of the original programming will mind, of course, but the channel tends to keep going regardless. This may show up with only a couple of odd programs in the schedule, but far too often, given enough time, a channel will have pretty much abandoned its original concept. Whether or not the former invariably leads to the latter is a subject for debate. Indeed, this is one of those times when They Changed It Now It Sucks is a perfectly valid complaint. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NetworkDecay
Aren't we the ones who decide whether he is good or bad for our hobby. And when I say we I don't mean the "hardcore" demographic that reside here I mean we as gamers as a whole. From the Peggle players to the ones who have spent the last X many years getting 1000 prestige in COD MW. There is all of this talk about the reduction of quality in gaming. That this group or that CEO is dooming us all. And yet here I sit day after day since the day I got an NES for Christmas the year it launched, had a Colecovision before that and spent my allowance every week at the local arcade watching as games have steadily increase in quality. Not just in graphics but in every aspect of it. But that isn't enough. It isn't enough that over 20 years ago I spent the same amount of money ($59.99) for a copy of Dragon Warrior and today I spent $59.99 on a new release 360 game. Even though everything about the game I bought today is beyond my wildest imagination 20+ years ago.
Prepare to get offended.
Bobby or a reasonable facimile is not the problem. EA was not the problem. Nintendo with thier "hey lets market to casual gamers" is not the problem. The hardcore gamer is the problem. We have been spoiled to the point where we are no longer happy with what they offer. Not because most games are necessarily bad but because they didn't achieve our steadily rising expectations. We expect them to keep one upping themselves. We see a slight flaw and grab onto it like a pitbull on a child's leg and don't let go. It isn't that quality is declining it is our expectations that have grown to the point of being unreasonable. We bash games for not having this (and no I don't mean MW2) I mean reviewers who say crap like well it didn't have a cover system so it gets a 3. Then we gamers complain that there is no innovation. That we are drowning in sequels. When a new IP comes out we get frightened and avoid it. Or compare it to other games (Dead Space anyone? or shall I say RE4 in space) then call it bad. Sure it is easy to point a finger at Bobby and say "look at him. He is evil. He is ruining our industry. Our hobby that we love so much." Of course when you point a finger there is 3 pointing back at you (really there is, try it I can wait).
Now hold off the flames here for just one more second. I am not in any way saying all games are gold and deserve top rated scores. There is some terrible games that were slapped together with spit and chewing gum. Games that use popular titles like movies to sell a game. Or give players rewards for 5 minutes of play (like Avatar the Last Air-bender with it's infamous 1000 achievement points not to be confused with the new Avatar game based on the movie that doesn't sound half bad in the pre release hype). It just seems to me that hardcore gamers are going into games not for love but to look for love. And it has to be a perfect love. So we analyze and over analyze it to the point the game is no longer fun. Not because it isn't fun but by the time we are sitting down to play it our minds are made up and we are looking for flaws not fun.
Most 'hardcore gamers' act tough but most of them are scared.In a good way. They're scared of what will happen if people like you have the higher voice, then Game developers will gladly make shovel ware because no-one will be around to dismiss it. I meen, to anyone reading this, would you feel bad designing shit, making shit and marketing shit, if all people wanted we're shit? No you'd think you were a saint, if whoever that guy is actually genuinely thinks people want mass quantity over sustainable quantity and streaks of quality, then we can't blame him, he thinks he's doing the right thing.
Tommy burned his cat when he was 6 , his father belted the shit out of him and took his cat away, his mother yelled at his dad, gave his cat back and gave Tommy a present, the cat died 2 weeks after.
Most 'hardcore gamers' act tough but most of them are scared.In a good way. They're scared of what will happen if people like you have the higher voice, then Game developers will gladly make shovel ware because no-one will be around to dismiss it. I meen, to anyone reading this, would you feel bad designing shit, making shit and marketing shit, if all people wanted we're shit? No you'd think you were a saint, if whoever that guy is actually genuinely thinks people want mass quantity over sustainable quantity and streaks of quality, then we can't blame him, he thinks he's doing the right thing.
Tommy burned his cat when he was 6 , his father belted the shit out of him and took his cat away, his mother yelled at his dad, gave his cat back and gave Tommy a present, the cat died 2 weeks after.
Well if all people want is shit except for a small percentage of gamers then I guess shit is what we will be getting. Although one man's trash is another's treasure.
Although I do find it rather sad that you think gamers except for the uber elite are so stupid. Or have no sense of taste. Is there anything you can base that on? Or is it just opinion?
squid5580: There is all of this talk about the reduction of quality in gaming. That this group or that CEO is dooming us all. And yet here I sit day after day since the day I got an NES for Christmas the year it launched, had a Colecovision before that and spent my allowance every week at the local arcade watching as games have steadily increase in quality. Not just in graphics but in every aspect of it. But that isn't enough. It isn't enough that over 20 years ago I spent the same amount of money ($59.99) for a copy of Dragon Warrior and today I spent $59.99 on a new release 360 game. Even though everything about the game I bought today is beyond my wildest imagination 20+ years ago.
Prepare to get offended.
Bobby or a reasonable facimile is not the problem. EA was not the problem. Nintendo with thier "hey lets market to casual gamers" is not the problem. The hardcore gamer is the problem. We have been spoiled to the point where we are no longer happy with what they offer.
I am not offended, I'm just confused.
Why? Because while you and the rest of the people you include in that "we" group may be spoiled and unhappy with what they offer, I am not. I am not part of that group, so I don't know why you're posting this here. I think the games out today are great, including the ones from Activision (technically Vivendi)--like I said:
Cheeze_Pavilion: The reason is that although the Bobby Kotick's of this world are bringing you great games right now like Modern Warfare 2 and (someday) StarCraft II,
The games of tomorrow, though....are the Bobby Kotick's of this world interested in bringing me Civilization 5 if it was up to them? I mean, I'm happy today: the Beyond the Sword expansion knocked my socks off--it's basically Civ4.5, really. Tomorrow, though? That's another story.
squid5580: There is all of this talk about the reduction of quality in gaming. That this group or that CEO is dooming us all. And yet here I sit day after day since the day I got an NES for Christmas the year it launched, had a Colecovision before that and spent my allowance every week at the local arcade watching as games have steadily increase in quality. Not just in graphics but in every aspect of it. But that isn't enough. It isn't enough that over 20 years ago I spent the same amount of money ($59.99) for a copy of Dragon Warrior and today I spent $59.99 on a new release 360 game. Even though everything about the game I bought today is beyond my wildest imagination 20+ years ago.
Prepare to get offended.
Bobby or a reasonable facimile is not the problem. EA was not the problem. Nintendo with thier "hey lets market to casual gamers" is not the problem. The hardcore gamer is the problem. We have been spoiled to the point where we are no longer happy with what they offer.
I am not offended, I'm just confused.
Why? Because while you and the rest of the people you include in that "we" group may be spoiled and unhappy with what they offer, I am not. I am not part of that group, so I don't know why you're posting this here. I think the games out today are great, including the ones from Activision (technically Vivendi)--like I said:
Cheeze_Pavilion: The reason is that although the Bobby Kotick's of this world are bringing you great games right now like Modern Warfare 2 and (someday) StarCraft II,
The games of tomorrow, though....are the Bobby Kotick's of this world interested in bringing me Civilization 5? I mean, I'm happy today: the Beyond the Sword expansion knocked my socks off--it's basically Civ4.5, really. Tomorrow, though? That's another story.
Here allow me to clear up that confusion for you. In the middle of making that post it hit me like a brick that this is my problem. That instead of playing and enjoying the games I have been analyzing them with a magnifying glass. Like I am a reviewer not a gamer. Now I know. And like Duke used to tell me "knowing is half the battle".
What I was attempting to say is this CEO or that is not going to keep us going. As long as there is profits to be made someone will be there to rake them in. What will lead to our destruction is all reviewers and no gamers.
Here allow me to clear up that confusion for you. In the middle of making that post it hit me like a brick that this is my problem. That instead of playing and enjoying the games I have been analyzing them with a magnifying glass. Like I am a reviewer not a gamer. Now I know. And like Duke used to tell me "knowing is half the battle".
I don't disagree with the things you said mostly, I just don't see the relevance to my post, besides that maybe you think it's a bigger problem than the one I'm point out.
What I was attempting to say is this CEO or that is not going to keep us going. As long as there is profits to be made someone will be there to rake them in. What will lead to our destruction is all reviewers and no gamers.
I disagree. If there was no Steve Jobs, there would be no Apple as we know it today. Sure it made financial sense, but the reason it became a reality is because he was a CEO with a vision. Raking in profits you know are there is the easy part. It's the people who rake in profits because they have a driving passion to not only bump their company's stock price, but to create something meaningful, those are the people who find markets that no one else realized existed, let alone figured out they could rake profit in from. And it's that drive to create something not just profitable, but something great that is responsible for how *awesome* games are today. Just...what about tomorrow?
Here allow me to clear up that confusion for you. In the middle of making that post it hit me like a brick that this is my problem. That instead of playing and enjoying the games I have been analyzing them with a magnifying glass. Like I am a reviewer not a gamer. Now I know. And like Duke used to tell me "knowing is half the battle".
I don't disagree with the things you said mostly, I just don't see the relevance to my post, besides that maybe you think it's a bigger problem than the one I'm point out.
What I was attempting to say is this CEO or that is not going to keep us going. As long as there is profits to be made someone will be there to rake them in. What will lead to our destruction is all reviewers and no gamers.
I disagree. If there was no Steve Jobs, there would be no Apple as we know it today. Sure it made financial sense, but the reason it became a reality is because he was a CEO with a vision. Raking in profits you know are there is the easy part. It's the people who rake in profits because they have a driving passion to not only bump their company's stock price, but to create something meaningful, those are the people who find markets that no one else realized existed, let alone figured out they could rake profit in from. And it's that drive to create something not just profitable, but something great that is responsible for how *awesome* games are today. Just...what about tomorrow?
Yes I do think it is a bigger problem than the one you are pointing out. I think you are simplifying it by putting all the responsibility on the shoulders of a few. Don't get me wrong though I am not in complete disagreement with you. First off I don't think the Steve vs Bobby is a fair comparison. Steve is a visionary sure. But his vision is very narrowly focused. Bobby on the otherhand requires no vision to succeed. You see Bobby needs other people, he needs a chain to get to the end goal (profit). He seems smart enough to be able to aquire smart, passionate people to work for him. They are the visionaries. A good CEO just needs to be able to recognize talent and a good idea. I don't think Bobby leaves his ivory tower and goes down to the nerd wing of Activision and tells them "make me a game about flying watermelons that make fish noises" and claps his hands twice. What I think makes more sense is a manager of a team comes to him and says look the guys and I have come up with this idea for a game. He reads the proposal along with investors and whatnot and then they either greenlight the game or don't. Asking "will this game be profitable?" which means to us "will this game be good." Of course there is some no brainers like MW2 which he may have said make me this game. At the end of the day though he is the face we know. We don't know who Fred is even though he is the one who came up with the whole MW idea.
Steve has the luxury of being more focused. He doesn't have to worry about 10 projects and a gazillion proposals. He has a dream about touchscreens and says to an engineer the next day "is this possible"? Which means he is more deserving of the wrath or praise depending on success or failure. Although where would the Iphone be without indy devs crankin out apps like there is no tomorrow? And 1 could point out it was rather shortsighted of him to not get more games on the Mac (although I don't know why this is the case).
Oh and for the record this is a very simplified version. It would be far more complex than I described.
Oh God. I just realized this... if I am totally boycotting Activision, not wanting to give Kotick any money... that means I cannot buy Diablo 3, right?
OT: I agree totally. I am not business savvy and I am not that smart. But I know what I believe in. And according to those beliefs Kotick is a tick. He wants to suck the fun out of gaming, and earn enough money so that he never have to work again in the process. Having a man that doesn't enjoy games as the head of a game developer... it's just wrong. It's like he has no pride in what he does, or himself. And that is just sad.
Here allow me to clear up that confusion for you. In the middle of making that post it hit me like a brick that this is my problem. That instead of playing and enjoying the games I have been analyzing them with a magnifying glass. Like I am a reviewer not a gamer. Now I know. And like Duke used to tell me "knowing is half the battle".
I don't disagree with the things you said mostly, I just don't see the relevance to my post, besides that maybe you think it's a bigger problem than the one I'm point out.
What I was attempting to say is this CEO or that is not going to keep us going. As long as there is profits to be made someone will be there to rake them in. What will lead to our destruction is all reviewers and no gamers.
I disagree. If there was no Steve Jobs, there would be no Apple as we know it today. Sure it made financial sense, but the reason it became a reality is because he was a CEO with a vision. Raking in profits you know are there is the easy part. It's the people who rake in profits because they have a driving passion to not only bump their company's stock price, but to create something meaningful, those are the people who find markets that no one else realized existed, let alone figured out they could rake profit in from. And it's that drive to create something not just profitable, but something great that is responsible for how *awesome* games are today. Just...what about tomorrow?
Yes I do think it is a bigger problem than the one you are pointing out.
Bigger because it bothers you more, or bigger because it represents an actual threat to the hobby? I mean, I don't see how some supposed 'hardcore' gamers getting jaded is much of a threat to anything but their keyboards and forum mods.
I think you are simplifying it by putting all the responsibility on the shoulders of a few. Don't get me wrong though I am not in complete disagreement with you. First off I don't think the Steve vs Bobby is a fair comparison. Steve is a visionary sure. But his vision is very narrowly focused. Bobby on the otherhand requires no vision to succeed. You see Bobby needs other people, he needs a chain to get to the end goal (profit).
Well, right there, that's my point: Bobby only has one goal: profit. Steve has two goals: profit and greatness. That's going to have a big impact on how they steer their company.
He seems smart enough to be able to aquire smart, passionate people to work for him. They are the visionaries. A good CEO just needs to be able to recognize talent and a good idea. I don't think Bobby leaves his ivory tower and goes down to the nerd wing of Activision and tells them "make me a game about flying watermelons that make fish noises" and claps his hands twice.
He may only hire smart, passionate people, but he has also turned away smart, passionate people from working with him. As it reports in one of the links:
Kotick responded not by addressing any of the games by name, but by talking about Activision's publishing philosophy. The games Activision Blizzard didn't pick up, he said, "don't have the potential to be exploited every year on every platform with clear sequel potential and have the potential to become $100 million franchises. ... I think, generally, our strategy has been to focus... on the products that have those attributes and characteristics, the products that we know [that] if we release them today, we'll be working on them 10 years from now."
In other words, no matter how great a game may be, it's still not enough, even if it's great AND it's going to make a profit. It's got to have "clear sequel potential and have the potential to become $100 million franchises" to be a focus for Bobby. Did a game like BioShock look like one of those games? I mean, that's your icon, right? And that's the game I anticipated most this generation.
Problem is, games like BioShock...just are not going to get made by a company run by Bobby. Sure we'll still get great games like Modern Warfare 2 and the FooCrafts and all--"smart, passionate people" who clearly have the capacity to make games that Bobby can 'exploit for 10 years' will continue to be financed by Activision Blizzard.
What about games like BioShock though? What happens to those games if the Bobbys of the world run the video game companies? And more importantly, what happens when those types decide there are greener pastures than videogaming?
Kotick is going to cause the collapse of his company just watch. The man's philosophy is equivalent to the uncontrolled cell growth that typifies cancer.
shadow skill: Kotick is going to cause the collapse of his company just watch. The man's philosophy is equivalent to the uncontrolled cell growth that typifies cancer.
Yeah--because he'll have already scheduled and cleared the sale of his stock with the SEC before the drop in share price, and there will be a golden parachute in place for when the company does go belly up.
What does he care what gaming looks like in ten years if at the end of ten years he's made his money? Think the people who expanded Boston Chicken because the stock market was in love with growth really cares that no one goes there anymore? They made their money. Chicken, video games, package goods--when there's no difference between them to your CEOs, don't be surprised when a company goes from top of the world to bankruptcy.
I like your "article", but there is one main flaw... while "Steve Jobs" might be more of an Idealist and all that he still IS a "Ruthless Businessman" in the sense that he uses tons of Marketing to overhype his products and asks a price for them that is double or triple that of what they're worth (and there's even lots of better alternatives out there, they just don't have the Marketing power or the "Image" Apple has).
Your Analogy would have worked a lot better if you had taken Google... They are basically just two boys that had a dream as they came from university and had a lot of Success "realizing" it while staying down to earth and not marketing everything for the last dime, even if they could...
Look at "Google Books": http://books.google.com/books If it'd be after them they would have the Largest library of books on earth online and for everyone to use and browse for FREE.
Look at "Google Earth", they could've made Premium money with it, instead they decided to put it out there for free for everyone to use and contribute to, they money they are making with is comes from (optional) Commercials that are put in by companies if you want to search for the next pizzeria on your Blackberry... Not only that but they're driving around taking pictures of all the areas in a city for free to offer "Street View" to anyone (for free) and most of the "thanks" they are getting are privacy groups complaining and lawsuits.
Look at "Google Android", a OS for mobile phones... the iPhone might be well and great, if it'd be up to Apple it'd be the most "closed-off" and proprietary system there is, but Google's OS is Open Source, everyone can use it... write his Apps for it and all that. Additional Features like "Google Maps" etc. also come FREE out of the Box.
They also have a News-Portal that collects and indexes News for most countries in this world: http://news.google.com/news?ned=en for which again... instead of getting thanks they are rather getting Flak from people like "Rupert Murdoch", who instead wants to rather monetize his news stories: http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/03/rupert-murdoch-google-business-media-murdoch.html They also have a database of News Stories and Time Magazine articles that goes back to 1920 for everyone to search comfortably from their home and see what Hitler had to say in 1933... again FREE (even further if you include other queries like Wikipedia).
They bought off Youtube, even though they knew it would bring trouble with "Copyright" people, might not be profitable at first and let it still be free, they even expanded the time/size a video can be and added HD features for 720p and soon 1080p.
Not to forget their "main" business, which is a search engine that actually finds what you are looking for and has features that go from Image Search (and even sorting them after colors, size etc. nowadays) to free Translation tools for most languages on this word that can make you actually understand articles that were written in say Norwegian or Chinese (again FOR FREE) and a lot more things underway: http://www.googlelabs.com/
There is a lot of stuff that Google is doing, most of it is ambitious and free and they STILL grew and made it to be one of the biggest Corporations to be out there and have a "culture of thrift" WITHOUT fucking everyone over and letting you pay for most (if anything at all) by using clever Marketing and Features. Apple has NOTHING on Google xD
Regarding Kotick, yeah I absolutely hate that guy and I had a collection of News articles of what "Activision Blizzard" did, since he became more "vocal":
Honestly Activision has been trying their best to screw gamers of all platforms the best they can lately. They've stopped doing things for the "Community" for years now. It just sucks that they're dragging Blizzard down with them:
Activision had just merged with Blizzard and it was decided, that StarCraft isn't going to make enough money as one normal game that's great, so they have to pad it and sell it as 3 full-price titles which are mediocre, of which you will need all to properly play the multiplayer part competitively. http://kotaku.com/5061980/starcraft-ii-single-player-is-a-trilogy
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.
"Blizzard" decides to drop the LAN playability mode on both Diablo 3 and StarCraft 2, so everyone that wants to play their game HAS to have a Battle.Net Account, an Unique Key (no longer playing with your mates or family on a private LAN with one copy of the game, but everyone needs his own and has to be logged in while doing so). http://starcraft.incgamers.com/blog/comments/no-lan-in-starcraft-ii-confirmed/ They also decided to turn the new Battle.Net 2.0 into a Privacy and Modder's Nightmare
Battle.Net says:
In order to provide the Battle.net Service, Blizzard must be entitled to access, monitor and/or review text chat, including private, or "whisper" chat, in the event of complaints from other users or violations of the law. By clicking the check box below, you agree that Blizzard (or one of Blizzard's affiliates) has the right to monitor and review personal messages you send or receive on the Battle.net Service, or through any game that is playable through the Battle.net Service, to investigate potential violations of the law, the Battle.net Terms of Use, or the Terms of Use agreement specific to any game playable on the Battle.net Service. Blizzard will not use the information for any reason other than pursuing such violations.
11.4 User Content. "Content" means any communications, images, sounds, and all the material and information that you upload or transmit through a Game client or the Service, or that other users upload or transmit, including without limitation any chat text. You hereby grant Blizzard a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, paid-up, non-exclusive, license, including the right to sublicense to third parties, and right to reproduce, fix, adapt, modify, translate, reformat, create derivative works from, manufacture, introduce into circulation, publish, distribute, sell, license, sublicense, transfer, rent, lease, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, or provide access to electronically, broadcast, communicate to the public by telecommunication, display, perform, enter into computer memory, and use and practice such Content as well as all modified and derivative works thereof. To the extent permitted by applicable laws, you hereby waive any moral rights you may have in any Content.
After noticing that Brütal Legend might be a bigger Deal than they previously anticipated, as it had won E3 awards and was on the front wall of the entrance building, Activision decided to sue Double Fine to try and stop releasing the game altogether: http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/59034
Activision is suing Double Fine Productions to stop the release of Brutal Legend, The Associated Press reported, claiming it still holds a valid contract to publish the heavy metal fantasy and has invested roughly $15 million in it.
The dispute stems from Brutal Legend's troubled history. Activision declined to acquire the game's publishing rights from Vivendi when the two merged in July 2008. EA picked up Brutal Legend that December, and planned to release it on October 13 this year.
Reports emerged in February that Activision believed it was still in negotiations over Brutal Legend when EA picked up the title, and was considering suing. An EA representative responded that it would "be like a husband abandoning his family and then suing after his wife meets a better looking guy."
EA and Double Fine Productions have yet to respond, but we'll keep you updated.
Blizzard decides that raising the entry prices for its Blizzcon 2009 from 100$ to 125$ would be a good idea, also for the first time ever, one can watch a Stream of the Event Live over DirecTV or the Internet, yours only and exclusively for 39.95$ http://blizzcon.rayv.com/Pages/en/faq.aspx Can't have free coverage like say during the biggest gaming events like the E3 or Tokyo Game Show...
"And then on the second question, Tony, on the pricing, we've had for all of our launch titles in the back half of this year, some of which contain peripherals, as you point out, very strong retailer acceptance and support for all parts of our plan, including our merchandising plans, our marketing programs, and our price points," replied Mike Griffith to an analysts question.
Bobby Kotick chips in: "And Tony, you know if it was left to me, I would raise the prices even further." It was then that the other executives chuckled, before pausing and moving on to another question during the Q2 earnings call Q&A.
Activision continues to sell their retarded Guitar Hero crap, breaking the barrier of 10 releases in 3 years and still making money with it.
Kotick noted that in the past he changed the employee incentive program so that it "really rewards profit and nothing else." He continued, "You have studio heads who five years ago didn't know the difference between a balance sheet and a bed sheet who are now arguing allocations in our CFO's office pretty regularly. ... We have a real culture of thrift. The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games."
Yes, he just said that.
Ultimately, Kotick doesn't want his employees to take anything for granted. They should always be aware of "skepticism, pessimism, and fear" in the midst of the global economic downturn. "We are very good at keeping people focused on the deep depression," he said.
Cheery fellow.
Infinity Ward decides to drop Modding Support and Custom Dedicated Servers for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, so they can control every Aspect of their game just like on consoles and demand money for such "Premium Content" as 1-2 New maps in DLCs while practically eliminating competitive play in leagues and for clans completely. http://kotaku.com/5384057/new-modern-warfare-matchmaking-service-will-definitely-reshape-pc-community It's like they took everything good this Developer said in an Interview about the PC version of Call of Duty 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMfTR8PBrsE and turned it around 180°, not only that but after that they tried to make everyone actually believe less features is better.
Activision's "Chef of finances" hints on "Pay2Play" Subscription plans for the Call of Duty series, not only that but he also insists that the gamers are demanding those "services and features" (that were free before) and they'd be glad to pay for them: http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/104/1044979p1.html Thomas Tippl says:
"It's definitely an aspiration that we see potential in, particularly as we look at different business models to monetize the online gameplay," said Tippl. "There's good knowledge exchange happening between the Blizzard folks and our online guys."
"We have great experience also on Call of Duty with the success we had on Xbox Live and PlayStation Network. A lot of that knowledge is getting actually built into the Battle.Net platform and the design of that," he added. "I think it's been mutually beneficial, and you should expect us to test and ultimately launch additional online monetization models of some of some of our biggest franchises like Call of Duty."
Tippl added there is a demand from its core fanbase willing to pay for additional services and content.
"Our gamers are telling us there's lots of services and innovation they would like to see that they're not getting yet. From what we see so far, additional content, as well as all the services Blizzard is offering, is that there is demand from the core gamers to pay up for that," Tipple explained.
Imminently after the obvious success of their over-priced "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2", the Los Angeles Times reports that Activision has enlisted a third developer studio to work on the "Call of Duty" series to milk the franchise even more for what it's worth: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6240709.html
Activision has the power to destroy PC gaming and tries as best it can, or even worse turning it into Console gaming, I basically stopped buying any of their games for the time being...
Not only that, but they have perfected what EA did wrong, they are only concentrating on certain "franchises" which promise to be successful and are cancelling every other title left and right. I can just hope that ULTIMATELY people will stop being interested in/buying their crap after they had 10+ Installments of a game (similar to Guitar Hero by increasingly more dissatisfied developers that are empty inside and just copy/paste something for money instead of having new ideas and doing what they LIKE) and when they screw them over once too much, but for now it doesn't look too good... especially because their financial success will most likely push other publishers/the market to emulate their "success" as businesses do, like they tried and are still trying with making a new "World of Warcraft".
Kotic and his company do not produce good games barring the two old horses that are long scince pummeled now CoD, Guitar Hero Acivisions list of productions is quite abysmal I'm suprised they became as powerful as they are now. Make no mistake it's purley due to Blizzard that these guys have any worthwhile titles in the works.
Here allow me to clear up that confusion for you. In the middle of making that post it hit me like a brick that this is my problem. That instead of playing and enjoying the games I have been analyzing them with a magnifying glass. Like I am a reviewer not a gamer. Now I know. And like Duke used to tell me "knowing is half the battle".
I don't disagree with the things you said mostly, I just don't see the relevance to my post, besides that maybe you think it's a bigger problem than the one I'm point out.
What I was attempting to say is this CEO or that is not going to keep us going. As long as there is profits to be made someone will be there to rake them in. What will lead to our destruction is all reviewers and no gamers.
I disagree. If there was no Steve Jobs, there would be no Apple as we know it today. Sure it made financial sense, but the reason it became a reality is because he was a CEO with a vision. Raking in profits you know are there is the easy part. It's the people who rake in profits because they have a driving passion to not only bump their company's stock price, but to create something meaningful, those are the people who find markets that no one else realized existed, let alone figured out they could rake profit in from. And it's that drive to create something not just profitable, but something great that is responsible for how *awesome* games are today. Just...what about tomorrow?
Yes I do think it is a bigger problem than the one you are pointing out.
Bigger because it bothers you more, or bigger because it represents an actual threat to the hobby? I mean, I don't see how some supposed 'hardcore' gamers getting jaded is much of a threat to anything but their keyboards and forum mods.
I think you are simplifying it by putting all the responsibility on the shoulders of a few. Don't get me wrong though I am not in complete disagreement with you. First off I don't think the Steve vs Bobby is a fair comparison. Steve is a visionary sure. But his vision is very narrowly focused. Bobby on the otherhand requires no vision to succeed. You see Bobby needs other people, he needs a chain to get to the end goal (profit).
Well, right there, that's my point: Bobby only has one goal: profit. Steve has two goals: profit and greatness. That's going to have a big impact on how they steer their company.
He seems smart enough to be able to aquire smart, passionate people to work for him. They are the visionaries. A good CEO just needs to be able to recognize talent and a good idea. I don't think Bobby leaves his ivory tower and goes down to the nerd wing of Activision and tells them "make me a game about flying watermelons that make fish noises" and claps his hands twice.
He may only hire smart, passionate people, but he has also turned away smart, passionate people from working with him. As it reports in one of the links:
Kotick responded not by addressing any of the games by name, but by talking about Activision’s publishing philosophy. The games Activision Blizzard didn't pick up, he said, "don't have the potential to be exploited every year on every platform with clear sequel potential and have the potential to become $100 million franchises. … I think, generally, our strategy has been to focus… on the products that have those attributes and characteristics, the products that we know [that] if we release them today, we'll be working on them 10 years from now."
In other words, no matter how great a game may be, it's still not enough, even if it's great AND it's going to make a profit. It's got to have "clear sequel potential and have the potential to become $100 million franchises" to be a focus for Bobby. Did a game like BioShock look like one of those games? I mean, that's your icon, right? And that's the game I anticipated most this generation.
Problem is, games like BioShock...just are not going to get made by a company run by Bobby. Sure we'll still get great games like Modern Warfare 2 and the FooCrafts and all--"smart, passionate people" who clearly have the capacity to make games that Bobby can 'exploit for 10 years' will continue to be financed by Activision Blizzard.
What about games like BioShock though? What happens to those games if the Bobbys of the world run the video game companies? And more importantly, what happens when those types decide there are greener pastures than videogaming?
Ok for the record I am going to call "hardcore" gamers passionate gamers from here on out. That is a far more suitable name for them. Look at the Wii's software sales. They are less than stellar while the hardware sales are through the roof. Without those passionate gamers who save thier pennies for the next big title we will be left with those who just buy the odd game here or there when they have a bit of disposable income. Since they don't burn through a game immediately a single title lasts them longer so they don't see the need to buy that next new shiny game.
A game like Bioshock wasn't meant to be a franchise. Not that I am not looking forward to the sequel but I am not going in without reservations. Although a quick history lesson. Look at the past 2 games which broke sales records. Neither one of which was an original IP. Then look at the sales of a game like Brutal Legend. It had everything working for it. Jack Black, Tim Schaefer and tons of hype. And the sales weren't exactly stellar. We gamers get on forums and holler we want new stuff. Give us new IPs. Although when we get to the stores we tell them no we want sequels. We want what we know. We want what is safe. He recognizes that and has called us out on it.
squid5580: Bobby or a reasonable facimile is not the problem. EA was not the problem. Nintendo with thier "hey lets market to casual gamers" is not the problem. The hardcore gamer is the problem. We have been spoiled to the point where we are no longer happy with what they offer. Not because most games are necessarily bad but because they didn't achieve our steadily rising expectations. We expect them to keep one upping themselves. We see a slight flaw and grab onto it like a pitbull on a child's leg and don't let go. It isn't that quality is declining it is our expectations that have grown to the point of being unreasonable. We bash games for not having this (and no I don't mean MW2) I mean reviewers who say crap like well it didn't have a cover system so it gets a 3. Then we gamers complain that there is no innovation. That we are drowning in sequels. When a new IP comes out we get frightened and avoid it. Or compare it to other games (Dead Space anyone? or shall I say RE4 in space) then call it bad. Sure it is easy to point a finger at Bobby and say "look at him. He is evil. He is ruining our industry. Our hobby that we love so much." Of course when you point a finger there is 3 pointing back at you (really there is, try it I can wait).
Amen brother.... A few examples of this....
Psychonauts, Shadow of the Colossus, Saints Row 2 - Games that were overlooked but were truly outstanding titles and deserved your attention.
Two Worlds - A good effort, not without it's flaws, but when people were expecting it to be the next Oblivion, no wonder they were disappointed.
Crackdown - A truly fun and different take on the sandbox, this game only got the sales it did due to the Halo 3 beta inclusion.
Combine this with the fact that gamers as a collective are blithering idiots that bought 6 million copies of GTA IV because it was a GTA game and the recent MW 2 travesty and this is where the problem lies. The problem lies in the fact that reviews are influenced, gamers are spoiled and biased, and it costs so much more money to develop a good game now because of the precedent we've set. This is why I thank God that Borderlands was successful and should keep Gearbox afloat for a while.
squid5580: Bobby or a reasonable facimile is not the problem. EA was not the problem. Nintendo with thier "hey lets market to casual gamers" is not the problem. The hardcore gamer is the problem. We have been spoiled to the point where we are no longer happy with what they offer. Not because most games are necessarily bad but because they didn't achieve our steadily rising expectations. We expect them to keep one upping themselves. We see a slight flaw and grab onto it like a pitbull on a child's leg and don't let go. It isn't that quality is declining it is our expectations that have grown to the point of being unreasonable. We bash games for not having this (and no I don't mean MW2) I mean reviewers who say crap like well it didn't have a cover system so it gets a 3. Then we gamers complain that there is no innovation. That we are drowning in sequels. When a new IP comes out we get frightened and avoid it. Or compare it to other games (Dead Space anyone? or shall I say RE4 in space) then call it bad. Sure it is easy to point a finger at Bobby and say "look at him. He is evil. He is ruining our industry. Our hobby that we love so much." Of course when you point a finger there is 3 pointing back at you (really there is, try it I can wait).
Amen brother.... A few examples of this....
Psychonauts, Shadow of the Colossus, Saints Row 2 - Games that were overlooked but were truly outstanding titles and deserved your attention.
Two Worlds - A good effort, not without it's flaws, but when people were expecting it to be the next Oblivion, no wonder they were disappointed.
Crackdown - A truly fun and different take on the sandbox, this game only got the sales it did due to the Halo 3 beta inclusion.
Combine this with the fact that gamers as a collective are blithering idiots that bought 6 million copies of GTA IV because it was a GTA game and the recent MW 2 travesty and this is where the problem lies. The problem lies in the fact that reviews are influenced, gamers are spoiled and biased, and it costs so much more money to develop a good game now because of the precedent we've set. This is why I thank God that Borderlands was successful and should keep Gearbox afloat for a while.
There is one very sad thing about Borderlands. 3 weeks and my local stores are still sold out. They sold out on day 1 and I was in GS asking about it on Sat. and they had gotten 1 copy for the 360 in. 1 copy in 3 weeks. How is the game supposed to sell if they can't get them on the shelves? Even the manager told me he has lost 1000s of dollars because of it (based on people like me coming in looking for a copy).
squid5580: There is one very sad thing about Borderlands. 3 weeks and my local stores are still sold out. They sold out on day 1 and I was in GS asking about it on Sat. and they had gotten 1 copy for the 360 in. 1 copy in 3 weeks. How is the game supposed to sell if they can't get them on the shelves? Even the manager told me he has lost 1000s of dollars because of it (based on people like me coming in looking for a copy).
I thought it was in a good release period for the game as there wasn't any major competition that week. I pre-ordered mine, but when I got there they had about 15 copies... must have bad luck in your area then.
squid5580: There is one very sad thing about Borderlands. 3 weeks and my local stores are still sold out. They sold out on day 1 and I was in GS asking about it on Sat. and they had gotten 1 copy for the 360 in. 1 copy in 3 weeks. How is the game supposed to sell if they can't get them on the shelves? Even the manager told me he has lost 1000s of dollars because of it (based on people like me coming in looking for a copy).
I thought it was in a good release period for the game as there wasn't any major competition that week. I pre-ordered mine, but when I got there they had about 15 copies... must have bad luck in your area then.
Oh yeah the timing was perfect. It was the amount of copies they released that posed the problem. About a week ago another poster mentioned it and he couldn't find a copy either in stores or online in the entire province.
I'm not (not) happy with what most studios have to offer because I have steadily rising expectations or I want them to "one-up" themselves but because they keep churning out games with a lot of "production value", great graphics and small to no fun...
Sure some games like Crysis, Dead Space, Dragon Age are good and some fun to play but not awesome and easily forgotten after you played them once.
It's been years since there's been a game like MAFIA, Max Payne 1/2, Warcraft 1-3, StarCraft, System Shock 2, Jedi Knight 2 etc. out there. The closest thing for me recently was Batman: Arkham Asylum and Left 4 Dead (though somewhat lacking)
Other than that I've had a lot more fun playing old or Indie games than any of those so-called "AAA" titles for example World of Goo, Plants vs. Zombies, Portal, the Secret of Monkey Island SE (Remake), Psychonauts, Ghost Master, Prince of Persia: Sands of Time etc.
A prime example was when I was getting excited for a "Fallout 3" a year ago and started playing Fallout 1 for the first time (I somehow missed out on it the first time around, only played Part 2 xD) and it was soooo much more fun than that bland borefast Fallout 3 turned out to be, despite of the Amount of money and marketing they put into it it's not even funny :/ I've even started playing the Baldur's Gate Trilogy together with a friend again a few months ago for a lack of engaging titles...
Nowadays 95% of all games (especially most "AAA" titles don't take ANY kind of risk anymore). They're basically built around a very similar framework of a "type" of game they're supposed to be like FPS/RPG/Action-RPG/Strategy etc. and they exchange a few characters, weapons and units for one another but it's usually like playing the same game over and over again... (often even in the story department)
Is it really so hard to create a new gameconcept that doesn't revolve around shooting things in space or shooting things in WW2 or shooting things today (or Orcs & Goblins)? Is it really impossible for a new Sonic or Mario to be created by someone with actually FUN gameplay and challenging levels? xD Or some original RPGs popping up? Some Adventures similar to Day of the Tentacle, Monkey Island, Grim Fandango or Discworld? ANYTHING FUN???
Not only that it apparently is, but there's even MORE AND MORE sequels coming out...
I'm not (not) happy with what most studios have to offer because I have steadily rising expectations or I want them to "one-up" themselves but because they keep churning out games with a lot of "production value", great graphics and small to no fun...
Sure some games like Crysis, Dead Space, Dragon Age are good and some fun to play but not awesome and easily forgotten after you played them once.
It's been years since there's been a game like MAFIA, Max Payne 1/2, Warcraft 1-3, StarCraft, System Shock 2, Jedi Knight 2 etc. out there. The closest thing for me recently was Batman: Arkham Asylum and Left 4 Dead (though somewhat lacking)
Other than that I've had a lot more fun playing old or Indie games than any of those so-called "AAA" titles for example World of Goo, Plants vs. Zombies, Portal, the Secret of Monkey Island SE (Remake), Psychonauts, Ghost Master, Prince of Persia: Sands of Time etc.
A prime example was when I was getting excited for a "Fallout 3" a year ago and started playing Fallout 1 for the first time (I somehow missed out on it the first time around, only played Part 2 xD) and it was soooo much more fun than that bland borefast Fallout 3 turned out to be, despite of the Amount of money and marketing they put into it it's not even funny :/ I've even started playing the Baldur's Gate Trilogy together with a friend again a few months ago for a lack of engaging titles...
Nowadays 95% of all games (especially most "AAA" titles don't take ANY kind of risk anymore). They're basically built around a very similar framework of a "type" of game they're supposed to be like FPS/RPG/Action-RPG/Strategy etc. and they exchange a few characters, weapons and units for one another but it's usually like playing the same game over and over again... (often even in the story department)
Is it really so hard to create a new gameconcept that doesn't revolve around shooting things in space or shooting things in WW2 or shooting things today (or Orcs & Goblins)? Is it really impossible for a new Sonic or Mario to be created by someone with actually FUN gameplay and challenging levels? xD Or some original RPGs popping up? Some Adventures similar to Day of the Tentacle, Monkey Island, Grim Fandango or Discworld? ANYTHING FUN???
Not only that it apparently is, but there's even MORE AND MORE sequels coming out...
So your definition of FUN applies to all of us now? Funny because I didn't find Batman all that much fun. I guess I must be wrong.
I'm not (not) happy with what most studios have to offer because I have steadily rising expectations or I want them to "one-up" themselves but because they keep churning out games with a lot of "production value", great graphics and small to no fun...
Sure some games like Crysis, Dead Space, Dragon Age are good and some fun to play but not awesome and easily forgotten after you played them once.
It's been years since there's been a game like MAFIA, Max Payne 1/2, Warcraft 1-3, StarCraft, System Shock 2, Jedi Knight 2 etc. out there. The closest thing for me recently was Batman: Arkham Asylum and Left 4 Dead (though somewhat lacking)
Other than that I've had a lot more fun playing old or Indie games than any of those so-called "AAA" titles for example World of Goo, Plants vs. Zombies, Portal, the Secret of Monkey Island SE (Remake), Psychonauts, Ghost Master, Prince of Persia: Sands of Time etc.
A prime example was when I was getting excited for a "Fallout 3" a year ago and started playing Fallout 1 for the first time (I somehow missed out on it the first time around, only played Part 2 xD) and it was soooo much more fun than that bland borefast Fallout 3 turned out to be, despite of the Amount of money and marketing they put into it it's not even funny :/ I've even started playing the Baldur's Gate Trilogy together with a friend again a few months ago for a lack of engaging titles...
Nowadays 95% of all games (especially most "AAA" titles don't take ANY kind of risk anymore). They're basically built around a very similar framework of a "type" of game they're supposed to be like FPS/RPG/Action-RPG/Strategy etc. and they exchange a few characters, weapons and units for one another but it's usually like playing the same game over and over again... (often even in the story department)
Is it really so hard to create a new gameconcept that doesn't revolve around shooting things in space or shooting things in WW2 or shooting things today (or Orcs & Goblins)? Is it really impossible for a new Sonic or Mario to be created by someone with actually FUN gameplay and challenging levels? xD Or some original RPGs popping up? Some Adventures similar to Day of the Tentacle, Monkey Island, Grim Fandango or Discworld? ANYTHING FUN???
Not only that it apparently is, but there's even MORE AND MORE sequels coming out...
I don't know... you complain about everything new... Left 4 Dead, Batman: AA, Dead Space, Dragon Age, Fallout 3.... You just sound like some grizzled old timer who's too busy reminding us about how games were better back in his day to realize that the industry has put forth a few true gems like Mass Effect, Left 4 Dead, Saints Row 2 and Little Big Planet in the past couple of years.
I grew up in the 8 bit days and thoroughly enjoyed most of the old school titles you mentioned, but I can also see that most of the stuff out today is clearly better. We are getting more innovative and raising the bar for developers everywhere.
What squid and I are saying is that innovation is generally frowned upon by publishers as a result of the buying habits of the general gaming populace. People turned out in droves to play Halo, Metal Gear, Call of Duty, etc... safe games that didn't take too many chances. As a result, more and more games of that ilk are created and the truly unique fail to find an audience.
squid5580: So your definition of FUN applies to all of us now? Funny because I didn't find Batman all that much fun. I guess I must be wrong.
Hahhaa... me neither... I enjoyed some of the stealth aspect of the game, but that one telling scene that ruined it for me is when the three guards are facing down the hallway and you're able to pick them all off silently even though they're STANDING RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER. Stupid AI would ruin a stealth game for me (Metal Gear I'm looking at you here).
I like your "article", but there is one main flaw... while "Steve Jobs" might be more of an Idealist and all that he still IS a "Ruthless Businessman" in the sense that he uses tons of Marketing to overhype his products and asks a price for them that is double or triple that of what they're worth (and there's even lots of better alternatives out there, they just don't have the Marketing power or the "Image" Apple has).
Heh--I agree with a lot of what you say, but I don't consider that a 'flaw': it's a feature! I wanted a "Ruthless Businessman" type to make my point that it's not impossible for such a person to be driven by something other than just money, to be driven by a love of the product and a pursuit of perfection as much as profits.
Your Analogy would have worked a lot better if you had taken Google... They are basically just two boys that had a dream as they came from university and had a lot of Success "realizing" it while staying down to earth and not marketing everything for the last dime, even if they could...
That's why I wanted a Steve Jobs for the analogy: the guy who wants to do things like lock you down in the Apple ecosystem. However, he's going to make sure that ecosystem isn't just a profit machine--that Apple ecosystem is going to be a thing of beauty--terrible beauty, but beauty nonetheless.
Of course if we were talking about the perfect CEO, I'd pick someone else. However, I had a narrow purpose here: to talk about how Bobby Kotick is peddling us all a myth, that we have to choose people like him or people who 'don't know a balance sheet from a bed sheet'. There are people out there who are twice the businessman he is, and are still as driven by vision as any 'artistic type' out there.
Not only that, but they have perfected what EA did wrong, they are only concentrating on certain "franchises" which promise to be successful and are cancelling every other title left and right.
Nmil-ek: Kotic and his company do not produce good games barring the two old horses that are long scince pummeled now CoD, Guitar Hero Acivisions list of productions is quite abysmal I'm suprised they became as powerful as they are now. Make no mistake it's purley due to Blizzard that these guys have any worthwhile titles in the works.
Yeah, this is what I'm thinking: Activision is riding high right now on the strength of the games it has, but are we ever going to get another great game from Activision? There's a difference between the talent to run a company when someone has handed you a portfolio of great games, and the talent to go out and find those great games yourself. It's like a manager that doesn't draft well--hand him a championship team and he'll keep winning championships, but what about a few seasons down the road?
Luckily for them Blizzard seems to be protected from on high from any sort of corporate meddling. It's just...let's call Activision what it is: it's not a video game company, it's a holding company standing in between the video game companies and the Vivendi conglomerate that owns them all. Zenimax is more of a video game company than Activision at this point.
ah look, all the people who are capitalist haters... They are a business, they do what they want, and if they are good, they survive. Survival of the smartest and most adaptive, if adaptive is chugging out boring unimaginative shit for years, then do it. These people are making a LIVING off this shit, and its hard to convince people to take risks on feeding their families.
I don't buy that many games, the last game i bought was L4D, and that was to play with friends.
I'm a dick that plays online poker for a living and takes advantage of people, i play as safe as can be, so i get where these companies are coming from.
squid5580: Bobby or a reasonable facimile is not the problem. EA was not the problem. Nintendo with thier "hey lets market to casual gamers" is not the problem. The hardcore gamer is the problem. We have been spoiled to the point where we are no longer happy with what they offer. Not because most games are necessarily bad but because they didn't achieve our steadily rising expectations. We expect them to keep one upping themselves. We see a slight flaw and grab onto it like a pitbull on a child's leg and don't let go. It isn't that quality is declining it is our expectations that have grown to the point of being unreasonable. We bash games for not having this (and no I don't mean MW2) I mean reviewers who say crap like well it didn't have a cover system so it gets a 3. Then we gamers complain that there is no innovation. That we are drowning in sequels. When a new IP comes out we get frightened and avoid it. Or compare it to other games (Dead Space anyone? or shall I say RE4 in space) then call it bad. Sure it is easy to point a finger at Bobby and say "look at him. He is evil. He is ruining our industry. Our hobby that we love so much." Of course when you point a finger there is 3 pointing back at you (really there is, try it I can wait).
Amen brother.... A few examples of this....
Psychonauts, Shadow of the Colossus, Saints Row 2 - Games that were overlooked but were truly outstanding titles and deserved your attention.
This isn't true--Shadow of the Colossus was NOT overlooked. It sold almost a million copies. It did much better than Ico, mostly because Sony backed up Team ICO with a good advertising campaign.
Which...is what is strange about Brutal Legend. Tim Schafer finally got the big time promo campaign that usually shows how it's not that gamers are mindless mouth breathers, we're just consumers like everyone else and if you advertise us quality will buy quality.
I think Tim Schafer is just the Joss Whedon of video games.
In any case, the 'hardcore gamer' is not the problem. Heck--remember when they were going to take the "Call of Duty" out of the title of Modern Warfare 2, and then thought better of it because of the impact it might have on sales? Even a game like that which seems like a slam dunk can benefit from the right marketing campaign.
Combine this with the fact that gamers as a collective are blithering idiots that bought 6 million copies of GTA IV because it was a GTA game
I disagree. I think so many people bought GTA 4 because they were promised a game of quality, a game that got hyped as art. In fact, GTA selling as well as it has I think proves gamers are NOT as a collective blithering idiots. A best-selling franchise tries to be less over the top and gets all ambitious with its characters and storyline (whether it succeeds is a different question) and gamers didn't desert the franchise.
Jazzyluv2: ah look, all the people who are capitalist haters...
Quite the contrary: I think my post is a *defense* of Capitalism as not necessarily a soul-less system, in part because of things I've learned observing The Escapist. It's just not sugar coated, that's all.
They are a business, they do what they want, and if they are good, they survive. Survival of the smartest and most adaptive, if adaptive is chugging out boring unimaginative shit for years, then do it.
Well, that's the question: is "chugging out boring unimaginative shit for years" really "adaptive"? You seem to have confused *flourishing today* with *surviving tomorrow*. I mean, this is my point: they're sacrificing their ability to adapt to future circumstances by turning into something that is built to exploit the present situation, like some superpredator who can't survive on anything but megafauna: when things change and the megafauna die off, so does the superpredator.
They just don't care, because they see no difference between the gaming ecosystem or the package goods ecosystem. They don't care if they wreck the ecosystem, because they have no problem migrating, to keep the analogy going.
These people are making a LIVING off this shit, and its hard to convince people to take risks on feeding their families.
Bobby Kotick's family will eat just fine no matter how hard his company fails unless he's done something brainless like not diversified his assets.
I'm a dick that plays online poker for a living and takes advantage of people, i play as safe as can be, so i get where these companies are coming from.
I'm guessing you love poker? That you don't just do it because you can make a living, but because you also enjoy the game? Would you play a game you hated for a living? These people would--they don't care what the game is, as long as they are making money. They don't care if what they do destroys online poker as long as the profits are high enough and they can move on to something else.
And that's my point--no matter how much of a dick Steve Jobs is, he's not going to sell sugar water no matter how profitable it would be. He's going to make sure he gets rich, but he's going to do it in a way where he gets rich by doing something he's passionate about.
actually i don't like poker that much, but it prevents me from having to get a real job for a couple years and is gonna pay my way through college. And pays a lot better than any other job i could probably get for the rest of my life. That's why i'm paying my way for a degree, cause chugging pokerstars on 4 tables at a time for 6 hours a day is not fun, and is stressful, emotional and everything in between, even though i know in the end i'm gonna make an assload of money, but some days in poker... lets just say that when the hands don't go your way for 2 hours it can drive you crazy.
Cheeze_Pavilion: This isn't true--Shadow of the Colossus was NOT overlooked. It sold almost a million copies. It did much better than Ico, mostly because Sony backed up Team ICO with a good advertising campaign.
Sorry, I just figured it would have sold more considering how great it was... 1 million is a paltry figure by today's standards.
Which...is what is strange about Brutal Legend. Tim Schafer finally got the big time promo campaign that usually shows how it's not that gamers are mindless mouth breathers, we're just consumers like everyone else and if you advertise us quality will buy quality.
I think Tim Schafer is just the Joss Whedon of video games.
I think part of the problem is the time of year they chose to release it and the fact that there were large RTS parts that brought it down a bit. It wasn't quite what people were expecting it to be.
In any case, the 'hardcore gamer' is not the problem. Heck--remember when they were going to take the "Call of Duty" out of the title of Modern Warfare 2, and then thought better of it because of the impact it might have on sales? Even a game like that which seems like a slam dunk can benefit from the right marketing campaign.
All that tells me is that Activision thinks gamers are idiots and as a result had to keep the tag on there because they know that they could just slap "Call of Duty" on any piece of shit and fans will buy it... "Big Red One" anyone?
I disagree. I think so many people bought GTA 4 because they were promised a game of quality, a game that got hyped as art. In fact, GTA selling as well as it has I think proves gamers are NOT as a collective blithering idiots. A best-selling franchise tries to be less over the top and gets all ambitious with its characters and storyline (whether it succeeds is a different question) and gamers didn't desert the franchise.
And all the raving reviews that came out about how it was the greatest game EVER had nothing to do with it? It was the highest rated game of all time... the metacritic aggregated scores for both PS3 and 360 are at 98.... Definitely over-hyped... and that, to me just proves that gamers as a collective are blithering idiots because they just do what the hype machines tell them to.
squid5580: So your definition of FUN applies to all of us now? Funny because I didn't find Batman all that much fun. I guess I must be wrong.
Hahhaa... me neither... I enjoyed some of the stealth aspect of the game, but that one telling scene that ruined it for me is when the three guards are facing down the hallway and you're able to pick them all off silently even though they're STANDING RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER. Stupid AI would ruin a stealth game for me (Metal Gear I'm looking at you here).
Funny because I liked the stealth (which is a first I usually don't like stealth games which probably has alot to do with our differing opinions). It was the combat that turned me off. It felt like they took all the fun out of a beat em up and reduced it to a single button. And don't get me started on the boss battles.
Cheeze_Pavilion: This isn't true--Shadow of the Colossus was NOT overlooked. It sold almost a million copies. It did much better than Ico, mostly because Sony backed up Team ICO with a good advertising campaign.
Sorry, I just figured it would have sold more considering how great it was... 1 million is a paltry figure by today's standards.
It's not Halo, but then again, that's the only standard we're going to have for success? It's got to sell a bajillion copies or its "overlooked"?
All that tells me is that Activision thinks gamers are idiots and as a result had to keep the tag on there because they know that they could just slap "Call of Duty" on any piece of shit and fans will buy it... "Big Red One" anyone?
I don't really think it tells you that, I think that's just something you can say to avoid agreeing with me ;-D
I disagree. I think so many people bought GTA 4 because they were promised a game of quality, a game that got hyped as art. In fact, GTA selling as well as it has I think proves gamers are NOT as a collective blithering idiots. A best-selling franchise tries to be less over the top and gets all ambitious with its characters and storyline (whether it succeeds is a different question) and gamers didn't desert the franchise.
And all the raving reviews that came out about how it was the greatest game EVER had nothing to do with it? It was the highest rated game of all time... the metacritic aggregated scores for both PS3 and 360 are at 98....
What's the problem with there being a connection between good reviews and people buying games? Shadow of the Colossus got a super high score too.
Definitely over-hyped...
Oh, that's the problem.
and that, to me just proves that gamers as a collective are blithering idiots because they just do what the hype machines tell them to.
Does it? Or is that just 'sour grapes' reasoning? If everyone knows a game is crap and people buy it anyway, that's proof that they are blithering idiots because they buy things they know are crap. If a game gets good reviews and people buy it, that's proof that they are...blithering idiots like before, just this time because it was all hype.
+++++
In other words, you seem to be coming to the discussion with theories that are not falsifiable. No matter what I say, it seems that just proves your original point.
Jazzyluv2: actually i don't like poker that much, but it prevents me from having to get a real job for a couple years and is gonna pay my way through college. And pays a lot better than any other job i could probably get for the rest of my life. That's why i'm paying my way for a degree,
Exactly--and just like you're going to leave poker for something else, the Bobby Koticks of the world are going to leave gaming as soon as it makes financial sense to do so. The difference of course being, you're not going to harm the hobby of poker in any way just using it to make money to finance a move to another job. Can you say the same thing about Kotick?
Compare that to a guy like Steve Jobs, who keeps coming back even though he's got...whatever is up with him and his pancreas and hormones. Whatever you want to say about the guy, the dude isn't looking for an exit strategy from the Apple business, let alone one that sacrifices Apple's long term legacy for short term profits.
squid5580: Aren't we the ones who decide whether he is good or bad for our hobby. And when I say we I don't mean the "hardcore" demographic that reside here I mean we as gamers as a whole. From the Peggle players to the ones who have spent the last X many years getting 1000 prestige in COD MW. There is all of this talk about the reduction of quality in gaming. That this group or that CEO is dooming us all. And yet here I sit day after day since the day I got an NES for Christmas the year it launched, had a Colecovision before that and spent my allowance every week at the local arcade watching as games have steadily increase in quality. Not just in graphics but in every aspect of it. But that isn't enough. It isn't enough that over 20 years ago I spent the same amount of money ($59.99) for a copy of Dragon Warrior and today I spent $59.99 on a new release 360 game. Even though everything about the game I bought today is beyond my wildest imagination 20+ years ago.
Prepare to get offended.
Bobby or a reasonable facimile is not the problem. EA was not the problem. Nintendo with thier "hey lets market to casual gamers" is not the problem. The hardcore gamer is the problem. We have been spoiled to the point where we are no longer happy with what they offer. Not because most games are necessarily bad but because they didn't achieve our steadily rising expectations. We expect them to keep one upping themselves. We see a slight flaw and grab onto it like a pitbull on a child's leg and don't let go. It isn't that quality is declining it is our expectations that have grown to the point of being unreasonable. We bash games for not having this (and no I don't mean MW2) I mean reviewers who say crap like well it didn't have a cover system so it gets a 3. Then we gamers complain that there is no innovation. That we are drowning in sequels. When a new IP comes out we get frightened and avoid it. Or compare it to other games (Dead Space anyone? or shall I say RE4 in space) then call it bad. Sure it is easy to point a finger at Bobby and say "look at him. He is evil. He is ruining our industry. Our hobby that we love so much." Of course when you point a finger there is 3 pointing back at you (really there is, try it I can wait).
Now hold off the flames here for just one more second. I am not in any way saying all games are gold and deserve top rated scores. There is some terrible games that were slapped together with spit and chewing gum. Games that use popular titles like movies to sell a game. Or give players rewards for 5 minutes of play (like Avatar the Last Air-bender with it's infamous 1000 achievement points not to be confused with the new Avatar game based on the movie that doesn't sound half bad in the pre release hype). It just seems to me that hardcore gamers are going into games not for love but to look for love. And it has to be a perfect love. So we analyze and over analyze it to the point the game is no longer fun. Not because it isn't fun but by the time we are sitting down to play it our minds are made up and we are looking for flaws not fun.
Flame on.
The problem though Squid is that as the consumer we have the right to expect the game industry to continue to progress, and produce an increasing quality of product. I look at say "Dragon Age: Origins" which managed to live up to it's hype for RPG gamers, as did "Fallout 3" which succeeded well enough to stay on Gamefaqs "top games list" with at least 1 entry for almost a year... and Fallout 3 had a lot of people prepared to hate it (including me).
Compared to those titles, we're dealing with what amounts to slapdash titles for the most part. There is no real excuse for games to be of lesser quality given the prices being demanded. I expect a lot for my $60.
But I guess a big part of it is specifically that $60 price tag, which is a LOT of money, with game companies trying to find ways to raise the prices beyond even that fairly ridiculous amount through DLC (which might just unlock what is already on your disk) and other assorted gimmicks.
See, right now the universal pricing of games means that a game that cost a million dollars to make, and one that cost a quarter of a billion dollars to make (yes MW2 I'm looking at you)retail for the same thing. So thus when I slap down $60 for my million dollar game, it might be good, but when I look at something for the same price that was developed for a lot more and is simply better... well that burns. Whether people rationalize it that way or not, I think this is where a lot of the problems come from. *I* think the prices of games should be more closely tied to their development budget. I also think that the gaming industry should be made to compete with each other as opposed to engaging in cartel behavior as that would lead to a higher quality of product at lower prices in the final equasion (but this gets well off the subject).
The point being that I feel the standards expected by gamers are quite reasonable. Especially if the industry is going to engage in price fixing.
-
Also (sort of to the OP as opposed to the person I'm responding to) I have a hard time taking Bobby Kotick's statement seriously. Allegedly this guy came rolling in saying "okay time to get corperate and efficient, happy, happy funtime is over" and sort of says that himself, but in the end I don't think the game industry IS very efficient which is part of the problem. To an extent his attitude might help if it was actually put into practice.
For example, Modern Warfare 2 ALLEGEDLY had a budget of a quarter of a billion dollars. Fifty Million to make the game, and Two Hundred Million for advertisement and promotion.
Stop and think about what a staggering amount of money that is for anything. Okay I've seen MW 2 (even if I won't play it until it's bargain bin fodder since I'm only interested in the single player) it's fairly impressive as far as fairly derivitive FPS games go. It's biggest gimmick being it's terrorist contreversy. It's advertising campaign was okay, but didn't strike me as being anything special. I mean Alpha Protocol seemed to do a better job promoting itself, running like 3 ads at a time in Game Informer which made it stick out, MW 2's ads were like "meh, well okay" they just didn't impress for the most part.
Where the heck did all of these massive piles of cash go? Given what they got there can't be much in the way of corperate efficiency involved because really even looking at it from the outside the waste must be staggering.
As a result how can anyone point fingers at him, I mean here they had enough money to successfully take over their own third world country (or maybe eve a second world countries). I wonder how the overall MW2 budget compares to the gross national product of say Haiti or Grenada... and what we see is a FPS without any dedicated PC servers selling heavily in a market primed by it's forefather.
I mean honestly unless these guys literally had cocaine troughs, or were commuting to and from work on the backs of hookers in "Pony Girl" outfits, I can't see how spending that much money for that game was in any way the result of "efficient, waste free management".
For a while now I've been trying to figure out all the hate on Activision. Technically, when Activision's CEO Bobby Kotick said "We have a real culture of thrift. The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games" he was just being honest: these are all large companies now, and their goal is profit. He wasn't really saying anything revolutionary in the context of Big Business when he inspired this strip from Penny Arcade:
However, something still disturbed me about that statement. And I finally realized what it is: it's NOT the only attitude a successful and driven CEO can have. In short, Bobby Kotick is no Steve Jobs.
Now, I'm not an Apple OR Big Business fanboy, but no one can deny this fact: Steve Jobs loves Apple. No matter how hard Steve Jobs plays the game and squeezes out profit, no matter how he exploits the iWhatever over and over again like it's a Jennifer Jason Leigh character--the way Activision *wish* they could exploit Call of Duty--Steve Jobs doesn't just want to succeed financially: he wants Apple to succeed *culturally*. His got a vision for Apple that goes beyond just the stock price: he's as much an Andy Warhol type figure--trying to turn pop image and everyday products into artistic statements--as he is a business tycoon.
I mean, even that statement from Kotick--"packaged goods folk"? He wants to be known for bringing in packaged goods folk into the gaming industry? Compare that with the 'story' of Jobs recruiting John Sculley away from PepsiCo with the line: "Do you want to spend the rest of your life selling sugared water or do you want a chance to change the world?" Could there be a more stark contrast in an approach to being a CEO?
Now, Kotick's excuse is that he's the 'business man' and he's herding all the 'vidja game' types into line, making the kids grow up and face the 'real world.' Well you know what--you don't have to be a soulless prick to succeed in the real world. Being a creative visionary and being a ruthless businessman is not a zero sum game. Whatever his other failings, Steve Jobs is proof of that.
Now, you might be asking why bother pointing all this out. The reason is that although the Bobby Kotick's of this world are bringing you great games right now like Modern Warfare 2 and (someday) StarCraft II,
you can bet your sweet Barack Obama unicorn riding ass
that if Bobby Kotick thought he *could* actually make more money by putting rainbow-farting unicorns in Diablo III
he would. Without a second thought. Now again: I'm not saying Steve Jobs is a saint, but Steve Jobs wants the Apple name to mean something. However Steve Jobs might look to screw the consumer, he's never going to decide to start selling "packaged goods" because that will turn a bigger profit.
Which brings me to, sorta, the point of this whole diatribe: even though people like Bobby Kotick are making profits by turning out really great games, are they good for our hobby long term? Or are they like those people who flooded into comic books and created an unstable bubble that almost sunk the industry (or even baseball cards)? I don't think it'll ever be that dire--video games aren't collectibles, they're entertainment media--but it *is* an area that is all the richer for having been niche all these years. Are we going to be left holding the bag when the Bobby Kotick's of the world decide to move on, with an impoverished gaming ecosystem because of all those years where the people who were just here for the profits were in charge?
Like I said: the whole dreamer/realist shtick Bobby Kotick is pulling is a false dichotomy. We need look no further than Steve Jobs to see that. I know gaming is Big Business now, and we need people with real management talent in charge of these companies. That doesn't mean we need to sell our soul to get them, though. And not only is that a fuzzy warm statement, it's the cold hard selfish truth that means we don't need people who aren't every bit as interested in making the games they sell great as in great game sales in order to survive as an industry as well as a hobby.
Don't ever let anyone ever tell you that to make it in 'the real world' you need to take the fun out of anything you want to do. Like the band Mischief Brew once sang, "the greatest of all historical shams/is believing you cannot do something you can"