Home    General Stuff    General Gaming
#1

Robert "Bobby" Kotick is the Devil

Archive: 27 posts

If you don't know who Bobby Kotick is, then you can get a handle on the guy here (http://www.h3xed.com/post.php?id=23).

Activision.. more so than practically any other company in the gaming industry, are the epitome of "Profits before Artistic Endeavour".
They would rather release the same game, again & again, year after year, than take a risk on a new title.
Which is part of the reason we see so few new IPs on the market... a majority of games released are sequels to a franchise. If the franchise manages to garner any modicum of success then there is the very real prospect of it being bought over by Activision... and if Activision cannot then turn that IP in an annualised $100million franchise, then it will be canned.
This has already seen the canning of many highly anticipated titles... because they couldn't release another version the exact same the year after.

Actision originally were known for their sub-standard titles - and follow the Microsoft Business model of, rather than coming up with any of their own original ideas, they simply steal from, or buy out the competition.

EA used to have a similar philosophy, basically releasing the same sports sim, year in year out, as a yearly update. This was successfull for them in terms of profit, but in terms of credibility, they had lost it all. Then EA decided to revamp their ethos... they would instead release games when they were ready to be released... this saw revolutionary titles like Fight Night, and Skate released, with a new emphasis on simulating real world movements and translating these into the movements on the thumbsticks. Their credibilty was restored... but in terms of sales, they slumped.

Activisions latest release, Call of Duty: Black Ops - broke all records for an entertainment release... despite simply being yet another annualised release.
The original makers of Call Of Duty, Infinity Ward, are currently sueing Activision.

Imagine this in terms of the music industry.
A band starts playing a song that becomes really popular... so popular that the band is signed to a 'big label' - they are then forced to play the same song, again & again & again, and when they refuse - they are all fired, and new band members are aquired - who then go on singing the same song again & again.
The band will now have lost all artistic credibilty.


Or to use a historical example;
Before the publication of Lord of The RIngs - they were not sure how much of a success the book would be, but recognised it's genius. The Publishers son convinced his father to give him the cash to publish, famously saying "If it's a work of genius, then you may lose the ?1000".
Publishing a risky title, not knowing how successfull it was going to be, and being willing to make a loss for the sake of artisitic endeavour. But they would rather that this work of genius is made available to the public, even if it would be at a cost to them.


Most people don't care who makes their games... they don't pay any attention to who the publisher is, or who the development team are... but there is one thing you can be sure of. If it's a Publication of Activision, then there will be an identical title of it released in a years time... and it will not be original.

Now, considering the VAST profits Activision make per annum (World of WarCraft alone makes them Billions every year - but they do not spend billions developing a game - they pay it out to shareholders {such is capitalism}), surely they are in the best position to take risks on unknown, unique and original titles - just as with Lord of the Rings - "If it's a work of genius, then I'll lose the money" ;
But instead Activision focus on the generic, "Safe" titles that they know can easily turn a profit.

How would you feel if Activision were to buy up Media Molecule.. and then drop Little Big Planet from future development because they can't turn it into an annualised cash cow?
Because this is the stark reality we face for the gaming industry if publishers such as Activision continue with their success for releasing rehashed titles.

Many of you probably play Cod:BO - many probably think the game is excellent - maybe the best FPS ever made.... but at what cost?


(sorry for the rant - but I was exiled from the Cod:BO thread)
Please use this thread as a general vent regarding the game industry, it's past and it's future 		2010-12-03 18:35:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

Activision makes a profit while so many other publishers are making big losses every year.

They may well be a bunch of ***** but they are very successful *****.		2010-12-03 20:04:00

Author:
Rabid-Coot
Posts: 6728

This has already seen the canning of many highly anticipated titles... because they couldn't release another version the exact same the year after.
Can you give examples please?		2010-12-03 21:01:00

Author:
lifeiscrapislife
Posts: 396

Lets see,
There was the Awesome looking StarWars BattleFront 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTV4GmboUfw&feature=related).

That one was near finished, from the leaked footage it looked to be about the best StarWars title of the generation, with seemless transition between Planet Surface>Spaceship>Space Station... noone can really work out why they dropped it because it was so highly anticipated.

Then there are other games that would be gems, but we'll never know.
Like Prototype 2.

*image removed*

Prototype was an awesome game, one of the most fun sandbox games released in a long while...

That's just off the top of my head, but there was a litteral cull of games in the pipeline that Activision decided was too risky, and that what gamers 'really really want' is the same game they played last year
They basically went on a spending spree, buying up alot of struggling developers and then cancelling any project that could not be made into an annualised cash cow.		2010-12-06 12:13:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

Then there are other games that would be gems, but we'll never know.
Like Prototype 2.

Prototype 2 is all but confirmed:

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/113/1138554p1.html

There is always the possibility Star Wars BattleFront 3 will be picked up by someone else although I personally do not know any gamers who care (besides you obviously and I guess Star Wars fans lol).

Let there be no doubt that Kotick is a greedy ******* but I have a news flash, video games are created to MAKE MONEY! Developers do not make games for altruistic reasons, it is a business like any other. I sort of understand your paranoia that the success of a franchise like CoD will jeopardize the development of new, original IP's but that simply has not been the reality nor will it ever be. The gaming industry keeps growing and growing creating more opportunities for developers to try something new. Gamers like me who began gaming in the 80's are now adults who have a lot of disposable income and fully support new IP's/original experiences. We have seen it all and something new is always appreciated if it is done right. Motion gaming has created another market entirely and I am excited to see how these technologies will grow and how developers choose to implement them. Bottom line? There is enough room for all kinds of games, buy the ones you like, ignore the ones you don't. Also, by buying Black Ops you too helped put more money in Kotick's pocket (your reasons for buying it are completely irrelevant) so forgive me if this thread seems a touch hypocritical 		2010-12-06 13:36:00

Author:
OCK
Posts: 1536

Activision decided ... that what gamers 'really really want' is the same game they played last year

Do you not realise that it wasn't Activision that decided this... It was the gamers themselves. It was us (well, not me, I don't buy those games, but the rest of you *points finger around the room wildly* yeah, it was you).

It's true that the Games industry is mostly based around developers cranking a handle and churning out incremental, periodic updates to popular franchises or rehashing a popular genre / concept and yes it's a pretty depressing scenario. But I think that the analogy with the publishing of books is unfair. The cost in bringing the product to market is orders of magnitude out and the risk involved so much higher that it's simply incomparable, especially at the end of the spectrum you are looking at. And on the subject of money it's worth noting, as Rabid Coot mentions, that the games industry, overall, struggles to make a profit - despite how ridiculously underpaid many developers are.

Of course, there is innovation in the world of games and particularly if you look at the other end of the spectrum, for example in mobile gaming, in the PSN / XBox live games, you actually can see a lot of innovation going on. Why? Because these are smaller enterprises, producing smaller games, with significantly smaller outlay. They can afford to take the risks, because the risk is smaller and they don't have such high overheads to worry about, not to mention the fact that often these developments are driven by amateurs whose primary interest is having fun developing. However, they simply are not capable of producing products with the high production values that are seen as so important by the majority of gamers, which is an obvious place where the costs are cut. The significant thing here is that some of the most talked about games of the last couple of years are nothing the paradigm that the big publishers adhere to and to me this gives some hope. Hope that the bigger publishers will take note of the interest in these games and understand that people do want to see something different.

But then maybe not. Angry Birds and Minecraft are not really something that can be considered competition for black ops, they don't reduce the sales of that franchise and from the PoV of Activision, these things don't pull enough profit for there to be any point in even considering investing their time in innovation. It's a vicious cycle: big developers don't take risks on creating the AAA titles that are innovative, therefore there are few AAA titles that are innovative, therefore there is no evidence to suggest that the big developers should take risks on creating innovative AAA titles, so big developers don't take risks on creating the AAA titles that are innovative. Even the innovative titles that are big sell significantly less than the non-risky ones...

Remember that the games industry is a young industry and a struggling one, yet the expectation from the punters is so very, very high. The costs associated with developing the quality of products that are expected necessitates the backing of big business and big business is driven by what the consumers desire, or more accurately, by what the larger proportion of the consumers desire. As with movies, as with TV, as with music, the majority do not desire artistic endeavour* - they just want entertainment, so that is what is developed, produced, marketed and promoted with the biggest budget, so that is what is at the forefront of the market. It is genuinely what the people want, regardless of what you, I or anyone else may think of that.


*The issue of games as art, in terms of the perception of the public and the media and the way in which games companies regularly screw up in terms of countering this negative perception is a whole other complex issue.		2010-12-06 15:16:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Do you not realise that it wasn't Activision that decided this... It was the gamers themselves. It was us (well, not me, I don't buy those games, but the rest of you *points finger around the room wildly* yeah, it was you).

THIS. ^^^

The game makers are not the bad guys here, the real bad guys are, well, us. Every time you buy one of these games, you're telling them that you're stupid enough to be entertained by the same shiny object twice, and to PAY for that same shiny object you already have. It's simple, don't buy them.		2010-12-06 15:50:00

Author:
Voltergeist
Posts: 1702

Will you PLEASE kindly SHUT UP about this.

We have managed to work out that you don't like CoD or Activision, we don't need you to reiterate it at every possible opportunity, especially as no one actually gives a ****. You have also pointed out that you like Battlefield more. You then began filling the BFBC2 thread with crap about how CoD is crap, and again, NO ONE CARES.

Give it a break.		2010-12-06 19:12:00

Author:
Unknown User

> NO ONE CARES.
> You wrote a whole paragraph about it.
> umadbro.jpg		2010-12-06 19:23:00

Author:
Voltergeist
Posts: 1702

It's not just Activision, everyone looks at what they're doing and whats going on in the industry and adjusts what they're doing to hopefully turn a profit.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AS5GI20101130

EA are making significant cuts to the number of games they are putting out in traditional retail and increasing their focus on digital distribution.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=278966

THQ are cutting back on on their kiddy licenced stuff thats been underperforming and strengthening their focus on devloping their own IP's that are performing well.		2010-12-06 21:00:00

Author:
Rabid-Coot
Posts: 6728

There is always the possibility Star Wars BattleFront 3 will be picked up by someone else although I personally do not know any gamers who care (besides you obviously and I guess Star Wars fans lol).

You'd be surprised just how many people want Battlefront 3. I mean, I know I was. When you go to gamefaqs and ask for games people want, there is a very high proportion of people who want Battlefront 3, and I very often see people asking why there hasn't been one. But yeah,.

Anywho, whether or not video games are made to make money, I do like when there is heart thrown into it. Just is better. ... But yeah. /runs		2010-12-06 21:08:00

Author:
RockSauron
Posts: 10882

It's not just the lack of original titles that irks me.. but the generic blandness of the titles on offer... or should that be the Americanisation of all titles.

Take a title like Crackdown.... it was developed in Scotland, by a Scottish development team... yet you would be hard pressed to find anything Scottish about the game at all. It is set in America, with American voice actors, using American TV as the primary research.
There are actually quite a few British development companies, but try and find any games that are actually set in Britain, or could be called a 'British Title'?

& It's all down to the bottom line. They want their games to sell as many units as possible, so they have to make it as generic as possible. In practice, this means making it as American as possible.. the hollywoodisation of the gaming industry.

Japan makes games for the Japanese, alot of the games are not released outside of Japan, precicely because they are developed for Japanese tastes (although the rest of the world is usually looking on with envy and jealousy at not being able to get their hands on it).
Japanese games tend to have a Fantasy setting, they prefer swords over guns, possibly as a hangover from WWII.
America makes games for the Americans - usually featuring gun play, because America is obsessed by Gun culture, and the lesson it learned from WWII was "What a great setting for a game!"
Where as Britian seems to make games for America aswell... there is no need for this. America already makes those games.
I want to see more unique, quirky and original titles that have that distinctive British flavour. LBP is kind of one of those titles, it's certainly unique and quirky, and Stephen Fry ads the quintisential British flavour.
Little Big Planet is the exception that proves the rule.

But what about the rest

Call me old fashioned, but I think an Author should write a book because they have a story to tell - not because he wants a new car.
A band should write a song because of the burning desire to perform, not the desire to make money.
And a developer should be making a game they want to play, not because "it's the holiday season and we need to release an FPS"		2010-12-07 12:34:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

Take a title like Crackdown.... it was developed in Scotland, by a Scottish development team...

And what happened to Realtime worlds? Did they perhaps go into receivership a couple of months ago because the UK games industry is struggling so much? Hmmm? But sure, they shouldn't have worried about the bottom line (I mean, what's the point in that when you're trying to run a business) and taken risks that they genuinely, genuinely couldn't afford to take and run themselves into the ground quicker, right?


Oh, and whilst we're forming some real world grounding on this issue, remember that the industry got hit pretty hard in the last budget, so right now really isn't the time for any of the major devs to be taking risks.		2010-12-07 13:37:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

And what happened to Realtime worlds? Did they perhaps go into receivership a couple of months ago because the UK games industry is struggling so much? Hmmm? But sure, they shouldn't have worried about the bottom line (I mean, what's the point in that when you're trying to run a business) and taken risks that they genuinely, genuinely couldn't afford to take and run themselves into the ground quicker, right?


Oh, and whilst we're forming some real world grounding on this issue, remember that the industry got hit pretty hard in the last budget, so right now really isn't the time for any of the major devs to be taking risks.

They went into recievership because what they had decided to release a generic military shooter, the most crowded and over-subscribed genre of the gaming industry, and couldn't compete with the big boys in that playground.

If they had instead decided to make something original, something unique, something SCOTTISH... then perhaps they would have had better luck. Becuase they would have cornered the market. - *shrug* who knows.
With greater risk, comes greater reward.		2010-12-07 14:20:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

With greater risk, comes greater reward.

That's why Black Ops is doing so badly right now, right? 		2010-12-07 14:23:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

For smaller companies, definately.
Realtime thought it was playing it safe with APB - but it bombed so badly it destroyed the entire company.

But like you say, We, the gaming community at large, are to blame for the current state of affairs. - Demons like Bobby Kotick are just the leeches that exploit the situation.

Imagine if Call of Duty was a movie... every summer they'd be releasing the same film, maybe with new actors - but the same scenes, the same set pieces, the same setting.
This cut/copy/paste mentality could only work in the gaming industry, where they know that most gamers have addictive personalities - hence why they spend so much time gaming.

& Does no-one else find it sinister that they hired psychologists to impliment deliberately addictive game elements in order to get you hooked?
It's like ciggarette manufacturers spraying their product with nicotine. The only thing it adds is addictiveness.

Its just plain manipulative.		2010-12-07 14:40:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

As I said, the smaller companies can take risks, but only on smaller scale productions, hence why the "top" games don't exhibit this.


Imagine if Call of Duty was a movie... every summer they'd be releasing the same film, maybe with new actors - but the same scenes, the same set pieces, the same setting.
Like the Saw franchise? Yeah, I can see how that would fail in the Movie world. And like how every action film suddenly adopted the rapid-cutting camera work during fight scenes after the Bourne franchise made it cool? That's the sort of thing we're talking about, right?


This cut/copy/paste mentality could only work in the gaming industry, where they know that most gamers have addictive personalities Source? 'Cause I'm assuming this sudden sidetrack into addictiveness is based around last night's panorama (which was meh btw, if you didn't watch it, don't bother. it's not worth wasting a half hour of your time on), where the proper expert on the subject tells us that for "the vast majority" of gamers, addiction to games is not a risk.

As for "addictive elements" only adding addictiveness and being purely manipulative - that's not strictly true, especially if we're talking about randomisation elements - which force the player to engage, adapt, react and utilise a wider range of mental skills - varying of the experience on subsequent replays actually serves a number of wider functions - positive functions - as well as adding addictiveness. Yes, you could strip out those addictive elements, for the sake of the tiny minority that can't cope, at the detriment of everyone else who actually enjoys them in a healthy way.		2010-12-07 14:57:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Actually, no - I didn;t watch panorama.
But COD:BO is one of the first games that has really stood out to me as following the principles set out in this article (http://www.cracked.com/article_18461_5-creepy-ways-video-games-are-trying-to-get-you-addicted.html)written a while ago.

And I guess I am arguing purely from my perspective (where else could I argue from);
In that I can't stand hollywood cheesburger films - Saw is a heaping pile of poo-poo with the artistic credibility of a custard cream.

There is a difference between what is "popular" and what is "good". - The two rarely share the same space.

I prefer my small budget, independant story/acting driven films - rather than the big budget summer blockbuster.
Which is I suppose what I'm also looking for in games.

But they've stopped making games for me, and instead pander to the mass market. Leaving me, a lifetime gamer - feeling as if there isn;t any titles made for 'me'. These "Must Have" game titles leave me feeling as empty as the ending of a hollywood cheeseburger film.

And the COD: BO elements are not random - they are purely for the addiction. *see article above*		2010-12-07 15:11:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

They went into recievership because what they had decided to release a generic military shooter, the most crowded and over-subscribed genre of the gaming industry, and couldn't compete with the big boys in that playground.

If they had instead decided to make something original, something unique, something SCOTTISH... then perhaps they would have had better luck. Becuase they would have cornered the market. - *shrug* who knows.
With greater risk, comes greater reward.

I 100% guarantee they would not have done better.

You clearly have no concept of what is feasible in this kind of industry. You can't compare it to a writer writing a book because he has a story to tell, because wiring a book costs nothing other than your imagination and spare time. Making a game costs something called money. And without money to make the game, you get nowhere. If you invest the money into a game, you don't want to make a game that doesn't have much of a chance of doing well, especially as you don't have the money to advertise as effectively as someone like Activision, so even if it is brilliant, the sales figures will never be that high. That means you lose money. And that means you definitely won't try something risky again, if you can even afford to try anything again.

See the word that i put in italics? Money? Yeah, that's the entire point of an industry, making money in return for providing a service, or in this case, entertainment. If the money isn't there, there will be no games there. That's the way it is, and it's probably not going to change.		2010-12-07 16:50:00

Author:
Unknown User

You are aware that you're completely missing just about all the points that I've been making here and also arguing yourself around in circles?

Of course the Saw franchise has no artistic credibility (bar potentially the first, which conceptually is incredibly interesting) that's the reasons why I brought it up - to highlight how the assertions that this sort of thing "only happens in the games industry" is complete nonsense. It doesn't, it happens in all entertainment industries.

Of course small budget, independent films are more likely to have artistic integrity than the mass market ones - and the same is true of the games industry. And with both, as it is with music and all other entertainment industries, if you're looking for things outside of the mainstream then you have to actually go looking for them - don't expect the whole world to bend itself around your expectations. You claim to understand that popular is rarely the same as good, so why expect the popular titles, the big titles, to be good? As with films, if you want what's not in the mainstream, then you have to put in the effort to look elsewhere. Very much a case of reaping what you sow.


Of course the game employs psychology in it's interactions with the audience - as do films and all other entertainment media. And despite there being a wealth of biassed and sensationalist reports (oh, what's that? Sensationalising an issue most people know little about sells more copy? Really?) demonising these elements, which are arguably addictive in nature but arguably not inherently dangerously so, there isn't sufficient evidence that these factors are causing problems - it's all based upon isolated, extreme, case studies and the sensationalist media (who by the way are just as interested in the bottom line as the games companies you berate and arguably far more "demonic" in the way they achieve that). And in honesty, even the addictive aspects, such as collecting items, trophies, achievements which can seem mindless, are ultimately satisfying and pleasurable to many gamers, for exactly the same psychological reasons why they are addictive - they tap into some of our fundamental instincts and this gives us pleasure. For a tiny minority it causes issues - where arguably the issue there is intrinsic to the individual, not the games themselves.


But, overall, no matter how much you moan about the state of the industry, you can't blame them for you not being able to find games you want to play. Especially if you're just going out and buying the "must-have" games that you know aren't going to suit you - I think we all know who is to blame for that one And picking out all manner of random bits and pieces of things you don't like, to rant about wildly and with no direction, it may be time to face up to the fact, as other people have pointed out, that Kotick isn't the devil, he's not doing anything wrong and is providing many people with a lot of enjoyable entertainment. You just were silly enough to buy a game you didn't like and wanted to have a moan.

Of course, the industry does have all sorts of issues, and it's quite a complex and interesting topic... But the simple fact that you started this rant with the title you did (*sigh*) and proceeded to contradict yourself quite consistently throughout the course of the thread makes me seriously doubt whether it's worth discussing further in this place.		2010-12-07 16:54:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

It's all about the CHEDDAR baby!!

http://www.primacheese.co.uk/images/cheddar2.jpg


(sorry for the rant - but I was exiled from the Cod:BO thread)

@Macnme - Congrats on once again bringing Black Ops into discussion, I woudn't be too shocked to see you exiled from your own thread, really...... get over it, I for one don't want to see another "Star wars battlefront" or "prototype 2", I'm not gonna start a thread about it and yes, it was very much a Rant.		2010-12-07 18:10:00

Author:
MrFunctionality
Posts: 637

First up - Thanks RTM for actually keeping this thread as a discussion, when others would rather it turned into a fight.

As I said at the start of this thread - it's for a general discussion regarding the state of the games industry. - Maybe the title was a bit leading, but I don't think "Measured Discussion Regarding the Game Industry" would have gotten many replies.

Personally I don't see where I'm contradicting myself - but won't bite your head off for pointing it out.
I buy independant titles & big budget titles, being a committed life time gamer - but my buying habits alone are not going to affect the industry at large.

I guess the argument boils down to the time honoured "Big Corperation vs Mom & Pop Organisation";
Big Corperations will win that battle every time... and not always by fair means (in fact, rarely by fair means).

The reason I post this here, is because for me - Little Big Planet is the antithesis of Activisions model. Created as it was by a small team of talented developers, who had a desire to make a great game that 'they' wanted to play... rather than what was the most popular game genre in the market and needed to be released during the "prime gifting period". That would be the worst motivation for making a game. And in doing so, Media Molecule managed to create their own new genre - which has done them no end of good. They could have made another generic FPS - and in all likelyhood would have failed because they can't compete with the marketing prowess of Activision.

Mark Healey's "Beta Picks" email highlights it perfectly - going right back to his origins with computing and gaming, and how he himself complained regarding the inability to create software himself for the consoles - in the end having to make the game he wanted to see himself.

Me & my Bro have been planning our "perfect game" for a good 10 years now... Code Named: Ambition - as it would be the most ambitious game ever made - and we both have the ambition to some day see it made.. we've discussed it so much we already have a wealth of rules and game aspects planned out - & if I was in the position to (say a lottery win) - then yes, I would fund it - even if it meant losing all of my money.

Big Business is bad for creativity - Activision would never have made Little Big Planet. This, for me, proves that Bobby Kotick is a force for evil in the world. & try and tell me that the original creators of Call of Duty don't think that Kotick is evil
(I probably should have posted a picture here of Bobby Kotick as the devil {I think there are more photo's of him as satan than actual normal photo's of him} - but I've already made my point)		2010-12-08 12:34:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

And for every LittleBigPlanet, ie For every successful game that is unique and original, there will be hundreds of failed ones, that ruin the company making it. LBP had Sony's support, and not every game will get that just because it's unique. LBP is the exception, rather than the norm. And there is good reason for that.

And that reason is, as i said, money. It's a business, and they have to aim to make profits. A unique game that satisfies a few won't make up for the fact that they lose all their money.		2010-12-08 15:22:00

Author:
Unknown User

And that reason is, as i said, money.

& Money is the root of all evil.

ergo;
Bobby Kotick is the Devil.
QED 		2010-12-09 08:20:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

Big Business is bad for creativity

Yet your alternative viewpoint is LBP - Owned and funded by Sony. Without big business, that game would never have been made. Why do you think Media Molecule didn't make most of the DLC for LBP - because Sony outsourced that to various other studios so that LBP2 could be developed with a view to releasing in time for the "prime gifting period" of 2010 (they missed of course, but that's beside the point).


As Alex says, LBP is the exception, in that it is an innovative title that managed to convince the big businesses that it was worth pumping ridiculous amounts of money into, because they believed it would turn them a profit. Using a single example like that (and of course, a scattering of examples across the years) that indicates that yes, innovative, quirky masterpieces can pull big audiences and can turn profits doesn't take away the simple realities of the industry, it's audience and ultimately, the world.


And as we're still hammering at a single company, and even a single individual, answer me this: Why should Activision be expected to create these innovative titles? The truth is, with so many gamers out there playing and enjoying their products (some of which truly are fantastically well-made games, let's be honest), what reason is there for them (and I mean specifically them) to be creating any specific games that they aren't already making. It's certainly not in their interest to do so and as gamers, we have no need for such things - other companies are making innovative titles, I don't believe that in a market as varied as this one all developers should be trying to be all things to all men. Media Molecule, who you are placing as your antitheses of Activision, the White Knight in this debate, make a single game, which certainly doesn't appeal to everyone.... So where is the justification there? Surely nothing more than personal preference? In essence "companies shouldn't make games that don't appeal to me, if they do then they are evil". Really?		2010-12-09 11:33:00

Author:
rtm223
Posts: 6497

Well, thanks for paraphrasing me so innacurately - putting sentances and sentiments in my mouth that I did not utter.

I could paraphrase you just as unfairly - but I won't.
See this ^ - this is me rising above it


Why should Activision be expected to create these innovative titles?

Because they bought up the companies who's titles they were, only to drop any titles that couldn't be turned into an annuallised yearly cash cow.

Other companies are not making the titles I would like to see... hence why I'm having to plan my own game in order to satisfy my itch.

Surely you can see that it's a sad state of affairs that the only way I'm going to get to play the game that I actually want to play, is to actually make it myself?
And by the time I'm at the other end of the development process, I'm sure I'd be sick of the sight of it.


Activision use the Microsoft model of business (hey, it worked for M$, they're good at making money but doesn't stop people from thinking they're evil - see the multitude of court cases brought against them) - in that they never come up with their own ideas - they steal other peoples popular ideas, and then market it better.
Unless of course, they can't turn it into the annual cash cow - in which case it's dropped.


I have a feeling that future generations are going to look back on this "Age of Plastic" and be shocked to learn that we only thought something was worthwhile doing if it could turn a tidy profit.


How many billions a year profit do they really need before they feel safe enough to start taking risks on innovative titles?
They won't, they'll let the smaller companies take the risks - and if it's a success, then steal their idea, or assimilate them like the Borg. If that's not evil, I don;t know what is.


& People can buy any game they want - Activision can make any game they want;
You are as free to buy it and enjoy it as I am to critisise and deride it.

But why does LBP have to be the exception - and Activision the rule?
Don't bother - I know the answer - It's the same reason the Cinemas are full of crud, and the music charts are full of nursery rhymes.... "The general public";

... **** general public - scumming the place up as usual 		2010-12-09 12:31:00

Author:
Macnme
Posts: 1970

& Money is the root of all evil.

ergo;
Bobby Kotick is the Devil.
QED

Money is necessary for survival. And in Kotick's position, I'd do the same. I'd happily take the money he's getting without complaining. Especially when so many people do enjoy the CoD games. I wouldn't change it just because a few guys on a few forum have decided that CoD isn't good enough for them.		2010-12-09 16:48:00

Author:
Unknown User


LBPCentral Archive Statistics
Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Datenschutz
Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.