Activision Studios to Focus on One Game at a Time

[Logan Westbrook]

Activision Studios to Focus on One Game at a Time

Activision VP Dave Stohl says that in order to properly capitalize on opportunities, the publisher has adopted a new development strategy.

The days of developers working on multiple projects are a thing of the past, or at least they are at Activision. Activision Worldwide Studios VP Dave Stohl, who oversees all of Activision's owned developers, says that a studio trying to make two or more games at the same time "doesn't make sense anymore."

"People want the freedom to put all their resources against the big opportunity, and that's what we're trying to do," said Stohl. "[The industry is geared towards] big cross-platform launches in all territories with massive network support on the backend. So the opportunities and projects are just bigger; they're more challenging. And it absolutely takes focus. I mean, it really does."

This isn't a permanent state of affairs for Activision though, and Stohl stays forward planning and predicting new trends is very important: "You can't think only about today ... you have to say, 'What are our three-, four-year plans,' so that you don't make short term mistakes that you're gonna regret in the long term," he said. "You've gotta anticipate things, things like new hardware, hardware transitions, the cycles of it all, that kind of stuff, and then anticipate, and try to be smart about it."

Activision's strategy sounds like a sensible one, especially if it is taking steps to ensure it can still remain flexible should the need arise. Although it's unlikely every single upcoming Activision game is going to be amazing, studios devoting all their time and energy into a single project will hopefully produce some excellent games.

Source: Joystiq [http://www.joystiq.com/2010/07/07/activision-studios-head-brings-development-strategy-into-focus/]


Permalink

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I think working on their PR first would do a LOT more good.

That, and a public condemnation of Kotick.

(Yeah, I know he's only doing his job, but he's brought more hatred towards the group than Langdell brought to the copyright laws)

 

[Dr. wonderful]

Kevin stares at the article surpised by what it said. He written his reply as "This could be interesting; It will allow them to work on one problem and fix any glitch they come across."

 

[scnj]

Yeah, but they'll have three studios working on different games within the same franchise at any time in order to capitalise on an annual basis. What they're saying is interesting, but I still don't trust them.

 

[Jared]

All great plans and what not. It sounds good, but, putting it into practice is where we may see the vaneer begin to run dry

 

[Loonerinoes]

It makes perfect sense if you're the #1 king of the hill and want to consolidate your power, yes.

But it probably won't be enough if you're trying to actually compete and grow as an industry I think.

 

[Dorkmaster Flek]

So splitting your focus across several projects at once results in a decrease of quality? Naaaaaaaaaaw, really?

I think working on their PR first would do a LOT more good.

That, and a public condemnation of Kotick.

(Yeah, I know he's only doing his job, but he's brought more hatred towards the group than Langdell brought to the copyright laws)

Actually, the Edge fiasco is about trademarks, not copyright. Just saying.

 

[AfterAscon]

This is merely a continued reaction to the Infinity ward situation. In IW's contract they were supposed to be allowed to create a new IP. This new directive is an attempt to stop Activision losing control over new games and subsidiaries. For example; how is a developer like treyarch ever going to make a new IP when they are set to make call of duty games forever, on a two year cycle.

Although this may make sense from a strategic point of view, its a shot to the foot for creativity.

 

[Zerbye]

Agreed, creativity will take a hit. I foresee an increase in production values, and a decrease in creativity. This is already true to some extent with console game development, but it should be even more pronounced here. If they put all their eggs in one basket, they're going to play it safe and go with a proven product.

 

[TheGuy(wantstobe)]

Stohl stays forward planning and predicting new trends is very important: "You can't think only about today ... you have to say, 'What are our three-, four-year plans,' so that you don't make short term mistakes that you're gonna regret in the long term,"

Wait... what? Hasn't the Actvision side of Acti-Blizz been all about the shortterm while screwing the long term for a good couple of years now? This PR makes no sense whatsoever

 

[Unrulyhandbag]

3-4 years long term, is this the business worlds version of ADD? whatever happened to the 10 year plan?


Seriously though, good. The publisher has lots of smaller companies why should each company be spreading itself thin working on lots of big game? Just hand each interesting idea to a suitable company and keep them at it until it's finished properly.

The current method of handing several jobs to each dev and getting them to drag people from project to project sounds like a recipe for unfocused results.

 

[DTWolfwood]

Dont forget they are gonna slap a subscription fee to everything.

/me flees

 

[Timbydude]

Activision Studios to Focus on One Game at a Time

The days of developers working on multiple projects are a thing of the past, or at least they are at Activision. Activision Worldwide Studios VP Dave Stohl, who oversees all of Activision's owned developers, says that a studio trying to make two or more games at the same time "doesn't make sense anymore."


Permalink

Pssh, no way. I don't believe you.

Next you're going to start telling me that people get tired of a franchise once it's been milked to death.

 

[Outlaw Torn]

And 90% of those games will be either Call of Duty or [bile] Hero games. Unless of course His Grand High Master of the World Nobby Kotick is going to make games that involve you paying money to him.

 

[HentMas]

mmm... from a purely enterprise point of view, its a ripoff for the consumers

look, pouring all their resources on one place at the same time, that just means one game at a time, and that means the flow of production is going to stabilize to 1 game at a time from that studio, meaning that what they are trying to do is control the flow of games being released at a given time, a game picks up steam and sell as many as it can, and once they are done, start over with a second game.

wich means that prices will go UP, the game will be as main stream as posible (so they can sell the million figures they want) and games will start to work on thrends, trying to "guess" what the audience wants next, wich brings the seccond problem of "no more risks" "no more untested things" "no more weird things that could be wrong" all in the little "SAFE" bubble of acceptable things.

lets see what happens

 

[NickCaligo42]

... 'kay. So. Developers ELECT to work on more than one game at a time, and Activision's saying "no, don't do that. But we still want your games to be released on the timeframe we foisted on you that made you have to do that in the first place."

I see how this COULD be a good thing, but I also see how this could screw over any or all of Activision's developers... it's like putting a limit on the number of games they can make at a time, and therefore a limit on the amount of money they're able to make while at the same time putting no limit on the amount of money Activision can take from them...

mmm... from a purely enterprise point of view, its a ripoff for the consumers

look, pouring all their resources on one place at the same time, that just means one game at a time, and that means the flow of production is going to stabilize to 1 game at a time from that studio, meaning that what they are trying to do is control the flow of games being released at a given time, a game picks up steam and sell as many as it can, and once they are done, start over with a second game.

wich means that prices will go UP, the game will be as main stream as posible (so they can sell the million figures they want) and games will start to work on thrends, trying to "guess" what the audience wants next, wich brings the seccond problem of "no more risks" "no more untested things" "no more weird things that could be wrong" all in the little "SAFE" bubble of acceptable things.

lets see what happens

And then there's this.. I mean, the VP openly states that all the features they're expecting from all their developers BASICALLY coincide with Call of Duty. He doesn't say that specifically, but "huge network backend" and "cross-platform releases" kind of jump out and scream "we're specifically talking about Call of Duty and other excuses for network multiplayer" at me. The rest screams "this is all we're going to produce from here on out."

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Could work. Could just mean "No Prototype 2 yet, we're busy milking our other franchises."

 

[V8 Ninja]

I'll wait and see Activision.