Activision: Social and Casual Games Don't Make Money
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Greetings Sir or Madam! It has come to our attention that you've been living under a mineral formation for the past few years. May we suggest that you could update yourself on the current events in the Entertainment Industry via some rather entertaining reading? 9 out of 10 doctors recommend the Age of Kotick [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/8169-Experienced-Points-Age-of-Kotick] article -- "It's Super Informative!"Dendio said:
I find it hilarious that he is going on about on about Social and Casual games not making money, but in this picture he is holding...
...A guitar hero controller? Does he even know what it is? Does anyone play Guitar Hero alone, and for the thrill that comes with hardcore games?
Bless him
...A guitar hero controller? Does he even know what it is? Does anyone play Guitar Hero alone, and for the thrill that comes with hardcore games?
"Whoops, we weren't paying attention, seems like we entered the market too late"
Oh my. Really, this man makes me very angry.
It's all topped off by his *pathetic* face.
He's just so laughable.
Oh my. Really, this man makes me very angry.
It's all topped off by his *pathetic* face.
He's just so laughable.
Not surprising, and I can't disagree with him. "Businessman decides to stick to most profitable market."
I notice a lot of people groaning over lack of innovation, look at the companies he controls; particularly Blizzard Entertainment. Blizzard has openly stated that they prize polish (execution) over innovation (see ref. 1), and look where it's gotten them. Blizzard has World of Warcraft, which rakes in almost unbelieveable amounts of cash mostly because it's the most polished and has years of balance tweaking. Also see the Starcraft series: innovative? Not particularly, but these games have unbelieveable fanbases the world 'round. Why? Again, because they will spend year after year balancing, and combined with a slight stroke of luck, it let them transform their RTS into an E-sport. Hell, even their Warcraft RTS series has a good competetive base around it.
Activision's games are on the Pareto frontier (see ref. 2), and Kotick knows it. Why the hell would he put the company's money on the line for a less profitable venture? That's not good business.
Reference 1: http://kotaku.com/5031694/blizzard-execution-over-innovation
Reference 2: http://achrongame.com/site/blog-main.php
(For Ref. 2, go to the article titled "Indie Vs. Goliath". It has a good explanation of the Pareto Frontier. Also, really cool innovative game!)
I notice a lot of people groaning over lack of innovation, look at the companies he controls; particularly Blizzard Entertainment. Blizzard has openly stated that they prize polish (execution) over innovation (see ref. 1), and look where it's gotten them. Blizzard has World of Warcraft, which rakes in almost unbelieveable amounts of cash mostly because it's the most polished and has years of balance tweaking. Also see the Starcraft series: innovative? Not particularly, but these games have unbelieveable fanbases the world 'round. Why? Again, because they will spend year after year balancing, and combined with a slight stroke of luck, it let them transform their RTS into an E-sport. Hell, even their Warcraft RTS series has a good competetive base around it.
Activision's games are on the Pareto frontier (see ref. 2), and Kotick knows it. Why the hell would he put the company's money on the line for a less profitable venture? That's not good business.
Reference 1: http://kotaku.com/5031694/blizzard-execution-over-innovation
Reference 2: http://achrongame.com/site/blog-main.php
(For Ref. 2, go to the article titled "Indie Vs. Goliath". It has a good explanation of the Pareto Frontier. Also, really cool innovative game!)