Activision's Evil Rep is Unfair Says Spider-Man Dev

[The Wooster]

Activision's Evil Rep is Unfair Says Spider-Man Dev

Apparently the monolithic corporation is just misunderstood.

Making fun of Activision is as simple as drawing a crude pair of horns on a picture of Bobby Kotick, and many would argue for good reason. However, Dee Brown, head of Beenox studio which was acquired by Activision back in 2005, says the publisher's reputation for cartoonish evilness isn't entirely deserved.

"I would certainly say from an internal perspective that the reputation Activision has acquired is probably unfair," he told GamesIndustry International. "Beenox was acquired in 2005, so it has been six years now that we've been with Activision. We had to work with Activision prior to our acquisition. There was a reason why I as the studio founder agreed to be acquired. It was because of their independent studio culture. I believed in that model, and I still believe in that model today."

Beenox started its life as a porting house, and is responsible for some 30 PC and Mac OS ports. Since being acquired by Activision, the developer has largely focused on movie tie-ins and Activision's line of Spider-Man games. Therein lies the problem. At the risk of sounding somewhat cynical, the support of a subsidiary porting house known mostly for humdrum license cash-ins is hardly likely to change anybody's opinion of the company.

"Activision has always treated us as partners, rather than something to be controlled," he continued. "They've been, from a creative standpoint, really, really great. When I look at Shattered Dimensions, what were asked for at the time was 'Please make a Spider-Man game.' That was the creative direction that Activision gave us."

Things aren't that bad though, Activision seemed to have taken over EA's post as the number one hate figure amongst gamers - thanks largely to the ongoing lawsuit with Call of Duty creators, West and Zampella, as well as a few clever PR moves from EA - until a surprise turnaround in early 2012 saw EA surge from behind and become the Consumerist's "Worst Company in America."

Source: GameIndustryBiz [http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-05-22-activisions-reputation-probably-unfair-says-spider-man-developer]



Permalink

 

[Kargathia]

The only problem, however, is that it's much more fun to blame big, evil, corporate overlords for everything. Life just wouldn't be the same without those little pleasures.

 

[Vuliev]

Activision's never felt "evil" to me, just...dumb/incompetent, I suppose. They certainly don't have the "money-grubbing asshole" vibe of EA.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

After the bombshells of what was going on with Acti in the Infinity Ward scandal, I'd have to disagree. They're definitely a bunch of greedy, ego maniacal control freaks.

 

[lancar]

says the publisher's reputation for cartoonish evilness isn't entirely deserved.

Sooooo.. just a bit, then?

Seriously, isn't Bobby Kotick the guy that said he wanted to take the fun out of videogames or something along the lines of that?

Not evil.. ye, right. Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess

 

[Mehall]

says the publisher's reputation for cartoonish evilness isn't entirely deserved.

Sooooo.. just a bit, then?

Seriously, isn't Bobby Kotick the guy that said he wanted to take the fun out of videogames or something along the lines of that?

Not evil.. ye, right. Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess

This is the entirety of the defence Kotick needs:

He didn't say he wanted to take fun out of games themselves. The quote is that he "wants to take the fun out of making games" (my emphasis)


EDIT: Please note that I do feel this is also undesirable, thought not as much as taking the fun out of the actual games.

Games are creative arts (which is why I can't make them: everything I ever do is completely derivative) and therefore something you need to enjoy making to get the best performance.

But if all you need is Call of Duty or Spiderman or something else that'll sell regardless of anything else then yeah, you might think you don't need your employees to be "HAVING FUN" at work. (And believe me, anything they make will sell. Tony Hawk: RIDE sold out in the store I worked in when it was released.)

 

[Sixcess]

I think EA still have the edge.

Spoiler

Activision is evil because it's business. EA is evil because it likes it.

 

[Something Amyss]

After the bombshells of what was going on with Acti in the Infinity Ward scandal, I'd have to disagree. They're definitely a bunch of greedy, ego maniacal control freaks.

Nah man, it's just cool to hate. For example:

The only problem, however, is that it's much more fun to blame big, evil, corporate overlords for everything. Life just wouldn't be the same without those little pleasures.

I rest my case. Haters gonna hate.

Anyway, on the topic: This is interesting, but I'm not sure it really means much. People usually speak well when they're actively on the inside, and only really go critical after the fact. I mean, is this guy going to really say "we hate Activision and how they keep publishing our awful Spider-Man games?"

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

I see the thought control chips inserted into all Actvision subsidary employees to avoid further insubordination are working just as planned then. We don't want another Infinity Ward incident now do we

 

[DeMorquist]

"I too love Bobby Kotick"


Did I say it right sir? You wont shut down our company?

 

[MagmaMan]

Activision's never felt "evil" to me, just...dumb/incompetent, I suppose. They certainly don't have the "money-grubbing asshole" vibe of EA.

I couldn't agree more!

 

[MagmaMan]

the developers of the new spiderman game seem to get what people want to see in a spiderman game. perhaps it might go the right way like Arkham Asylum.

lets hope that Activision doesn't screw it up again. -_-

It's a movie game, but hopefully it will at least be close to Spider-Man 2.

 

[Therumancer]

Well, Activision seems to be pretty good at compartmentalization. EA is pretty masterful at it as well. Until the hammer falls everyone believes they are the exception. A lot also has to do with the amount of budgeting and expectations. Right now I can't help but wonder how Bioware feels about their previous statements on the EA partnership after the recent round of layoffs caused in no small part by TOR underperforming.

What we can see from the outside is differant from what those on the inside see, it's like that in a lot of businesses. It's on a differant scale, but it's sort of like when I worked at the casino as security, you had each department (EVS, IS, Housekeeping, Warehouse, Coin, Clerical, Cage, etc...) all operating as their own little worlds, and frequently having much idea of the big picture of what was going on elsewhere. As Security with your fingers in all of those pies and overall interest in what's going in in policy you could see crap like oh say, the big wigs deciding they want to cut some of the housekeeping (Hotel) personell and putting the duties under EVS (like general janitorial) to cut corners. You could watch the pieces move, but when it comes time to walk out 4-5 housekeepers (typically low men on the totem pole) they, and even their supervisors who had to make the cut, are kind of surprised.

I'd imagine a big game company is the same, except perhaps even more extreme with everyone having their own offices and complexs, each studio being it's own little world, kind of oblivious to whatever else is going on. Only the guys in overall control (management) really see the big picture, and can control the information as to what one group knows what's going on with the others. Right when someone gets slammed, they are sure to give head patting to the others to calm them, so they remain "happy" until it's inevitably their turn.

Activision and EA got the reps they do by embracing the corperate mentality to the extreme. They are not about making a good product, for a decent profit. They are out to provide as little as possible for as much as possible, and really don't care about either the consumers OR their own employees as anything other than numbers to be manipulated for their bottom line. Every single time they do something it's by way of trying to squeeze more money out of the consumers, or cut corners, and inevitably the people watching these entities as a whole know that any development group they pick up inevitably gets the axe. What's more they tend to get the axe fairly quickly, the games industry is not about cultivating and supporting talent, like the music industry, a band/performer who dodesn't produce right now gets nailed to the wall or cut, rather than being held onto and cultivated to produce again.

Right now EA and Activision tend to both unleash on the market in cycles. Last year was very much "the year of EA" where they released tons of properties, ranging from Darkspore to TOR many of which under performed, which means now they are in tantrum mode. Before that we had Activision unleashing on the industry and it was the most evil before EA's turn. With EA spent for the moment, it's time for Activision to unload on the market (Diablo 3 being the opening Salvo) while EA is largely back in development, and it's going to be "most evil" again soon.

Personally, I understand the nature of business, but I do believe it's possible for companies to reign themselves in and content themselves with making a decent profit, as opposed to chasing an idea of every game being a million seller.

 

[Royas]

I'd say that Activision wouldn't have this evil reputation if they would just stop doing things that are interpreted as, well, evil. Or if one wishes to be generous, incredibly stupid.