Age of Kotick
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
This is a conflict between money(time) and art. The conflict has existed since the time of the renaissance. Back then, the conflict was between Artists and Patrons. Patrons such as the Medici banking family in Firenze. But that conflict produced some excellent results. Artists needed a place to live so they could work non-stop on their art, and perhaps even get wealthy and famous. Patrons would kick out Artists who were lazy or untalented. They were crafting art to sell to an upper class.
Up until present, art has richly filled a number of niches. Primarily film (1900s onward), music (1500s onward) and electronic entertainment. This art today is no longer a specialized precious item for an aristocrat, but a product for a mass of consumers. We are in the age of The Corporation and (State) "Capitalism." In the early age of computer gaming, when the technology was fresh, there was less corporate capital involved. The corporations of the 1980s saw the potential of the gaming industry, but there wasn't much capital in it yet. At that point, you could compare it to the renaissance, and consider it "Patronage." The few gaming corporations that existed back then didn't steer their developers with an iron fist. They gave them relatively free reins to experiment. The reason for this is obvious: The capital invested was so low that there was almost no risk, and since the market was brand new, there were potentially huge profits.
Fast forward 30 years later to 2010. The gaming industry has grown too large for its own good. Capital gains has produced an opulent, obese and stagnant behemoth of corporations. These Publishing houses act like "Patrons" breathing down their artists' necks. Necks with a very short leash. The accumulated Capital is too large. They can't take any risks. Thus they feel the need to micromanage. This micromanagement is in itself raising costs. Think of all the obsolete job titles you spot in the credits of any big game.
Since they can not and will not take risks, they won't condone experimenting. What we're seeing now with the Independent "movement" is a rebellion toward this state of affairs. The internet has provided the Independent developers with a myriad of low-cost online publishers that renders the big publishing houses obsolete. Finally the Developer is again back in the "Captain's Seat" of his/her own work of art. No longer a slave. For an independent developer, there is almost no capital involved, so there is no risk. They can experiment to a much greater degree.
This puts a smile on my face.
Up until present, art has richly filled a number of niches. Primarily film (1900s onward), music (1500s onward) and electronic entertainment. This art today is no longer a specialized precious item for an aristocrat, but a product for a mass of consumers. We are in the age of The Corporation and (State) "Capitalism." In the early age of computer gaming, when the technology was fresh, there was less corporate capital involved. The corporations of the 1980s saw the potential of the gaming industry, but there wasn't much capital in it yet. At that point, you could compare it to the renaissance, and consider it "Patronage." The few gaming corporations that existed back then didn't steer their developers with an iron fist. They gave them relatively free reins to experiment. The reason for this is obvious: The capital invested was so low that there was almost no risk, and since the market was brand new, there were potentially huge profits.
Fast forward 30 years later to 2010. The gaming industry has grown too large for its own good. Capital gains has produced an opulent, obese and stagnant behemoth of corporations. These Publishing houses act like "Patrons" breathing down their artists' necks. Necks with a very short leash. The accumulated Capital is too large. They can't take any risks. Thus they feel the need to micromanage. This micromanagement is in itself raising costs. Think of all the obsolete job titles you spot in the credits of any big game.
Since they can not and will not take risks, they won't condone experimenting. What we're seeing now with the Independent "movement" is a rebellion toward this state of affairs. The internet has provided the Independent developers with a myriad of low-cost online publishers that renders the big publishing houses obsolete. Finally the Developer is again back in the "Captain's Seat" of his/her own work of art. No longer a slave. For an independent developer, there is almost no capital involved, so there is no risk. They can experiment to a much greater degree.
This puts a smile on my face.
Michael Eisner of Disney practiced a similar strategy as CEO. That is who Kotick reminds me of. He is the video game equivalent of Eisner and his "every film a franchise" model. So like disney, Kotick will continue to do this for a half a decade or so, with his company making less and less overtime with stagnation. And in many cases i can see parallels between what has happened with activision now. Here is my projection for activisionAtmos Duality said:
Half a decade down the line the law of diminishing returns is beginning to catch up with Kotick, and Kotick will see the writing on the wall.
Thus in order to bring the money no longer provided with ailing franchises, he will begin the process of assimilating new talent. This will be done by the way of merging and purchasing new companies (already starting to happen). This option of obtaining talent will be favorable to Kotick, as it would seem no new infrastructural changes would be needed to activision itselft, and it will also boost the value of his stock options.
While this may look good on the NYSE index, it is going to cause severe issues within the company of activision, as the company becomes to unwieldy, and stagnates ever more do to its own weight. To counter this Kotick will begin to crack down on the minor companies he purchased, which will cause even more tensions. This will eventually reach the point where Kotic's company is on a downward spiral of loss and stagnations, in which to support his new amalogram of corps, he will layoff employees within activision itself.
This will begin to devalue the company activision and the minor companies will be more important within the company. This in turn will cause the stock of activision (the thing which i believe Kotic is very proud of) It will reach a point where the company itself will force kotic to step down as he is no longer generating either and some upstart new compan[y/ies] (like what dreamworks was to Disney in the early 2000's) will be threatening Activision's place at the sandbox. The board will then take drastic actions to clean itself, and thus higher a new ceo to bring confidence of stockholders up.
That's quite terrifying when you consider what happened to Disney.wammnebu said:
No, I don't include Pixar as part of Disney for those purposes; because without them I can't think of more than maybe one production Disney made in the last 10 years that was worth a damn.
Hmmm. There's a parallel.
Pixar = Blizzard?
They could be, but in many respects Blizzard (valve too)is just doing the same thing, but they have figured out how that if you time your reiterations, you can gain a return on anticipation.
Im thinking more along the lines of someone creating the new trend for activisions products, so they cant compete without sever adaptation.
For example, lets say brian reynolds develops a new interface and style for shooters so that they play like quasi RTS' complete with stream lined command codes for squad movements. or a new style for shooting where there is no cross hair but instead you reposition your gun, to give a "more accurate" shooting experience. This new style of first person shooter catches on and no-one wants to play the old "retro" shooters of cod gow, and battlefield. Activision just lost its market so its going to buy Big Huge Games in order to compete. Thus BHG will become indespensible to the market stragey of activision, and almost "takes over" activision." Just as Steve Jobs and John Lassater are on the Disney board and Eisner cleaned out his office.
Also to answere the "bad buisness" of nickel and diming. That is trying to find out what you can get away with selling (the last nine words are written in gold over Koticks door). He actually could tap a vary valuable resource and thus new ways to fund games, though it does generate animosity,
Im thinking more along the lines of someone creating the new trend for activisions products, so they cant compete without sever adaptation.
For example, lets say brian reynolds develops a new interface and style for shooters so that they play like quasi RTS' complete with stream lined command codes for squad movements. or a new style for shooting where there is no cross hair but instead you reposition your gun, to give a "more accurate" shooting experience. This new style of first person shooter catches on and no-one wants to play the old "retro" shooters of cod gow, and battlefield. Activision just lost its market so its going to buy Big Huge Games in order to compete. Thus BHG will become indespensible to the market stragey of activision, and almost "takes over" activision." Just as Steve Jobs and John Lassater are on the Disney board and Eisner cleaned out his office.
Also to answere the "bad buisness" of nickel and diming. That is trying to find out what you can get away with selling (the last nine words are written in gold over Koticks door). He actually could tap a vary valuable resource and thus new ways to fund games, though it does generate animosity,
Nice article,Didn't really change my idea,I already thought the same way because frankly,Kotick couldn't come up with a new idea on how to make money if he was at gunpoint.
I know why Kotick doesn't get fired or replaced.
Because ye unwashed masses keep ensuring massive profits for his strategies.
Seriously, he's taken to releasing a CoD game at or around the tenth of november every single year, and they are bad, cookie-cutter sequels with bugs everywhere, yet you STILL buy them.
This isn't rocket science.
Because ye unwashed masses keep ensuring massive profits for his strategies.
Seriously, he's taken to releasing a CoD game at or around the tenth of november every single year, and they are bad, cookie-cutter sequels with bugs everywhere, yet you STILL buy them.
This isn't rocket science.