Developer Blasts Activision Over Indie Game Competition

[oranger]

I often wonder about these massive companies, what they will do when they hit that wall...the one that will loom out of the fog, consisting of massive, easily available databases of animations/engines/etc? without their ability to create "cutting edge" graphics (we humans DO have a saturation point, a point at which we no longer care how realistic a game looks), their massive size and resources won't count.

 

[Delusibeta]

I was going to regurgitate the comment I made on that blog post, but considering that a) it's the second comment up and b) pretty much the conclusion most people made after the Infinity Ward fiasco, it seems a little redundant in this particular comments thread.

 

[Antari]

Ya I have to agree. I just see Activision ripping off the little guy by having him come in and show off his ideas. Meanwhile they have a team in the back stealing the idea and making it into a product they can say they came up with.

 

[Callate]

In order to be a Finalist, entrant must sign certain Submission documentation provided by Sponsor, which may include some or all of the following: release of claims against Sponsor; acknowledgement of Sponsor's development of game concepts that may be similar to entrant's Submission;

H'okay, I know this kind of language isn't uncommon in contracts (Steve Jackson Games requires signing off on something similar before you offer a game submission), and it's probably just a CYA to prevent someone up the road claiming that Big Sucessful Game Franchise: The Gamening XVI was their idea all along. But in the context of a competition and along with the non-disclosure rules and, well, it being Activision, it really sounds like they're offering a big ol' opportunity to turn over your ideas to the company that can turn the decent ones into working prototypes faster than just about any independent team out there and then not pay the brainstorming team a plugged nickel.

Back in the days of yore, Activision was formed because another evil company (Atari) saw its games as little more than commodities and programmers as little more than assembly line workers, refusing to give them any sort of credit or royalty for their work. It's more than a little sad to see how far (and how low) the company has come.

 

[Macguffin]

Well, that headline wasn't hyperbolic at all.

First line: "Developer blasts activision".
Last line: "He is not saying that people shouldn't get involved".

See a disconnect there?

QFT. Seriously, Escapist. I'm wondering why I read you guys for news these days, since I need to parse it all to find the actual news.

 

[Dexiro]

Indies are smart enough to know not to get involved with Activision, unless one of them has been hiding under a rock for the past few years.

 

[baneofall90]

well i can see it now bundling maybe 2 or 3 £10 games for £80

 

[Proteus214]

I think that it all depends on how much the developers trust the competition's host. Considering that this is Activision, the same company that has been known to not exactly favor developers, I can understand that the level of backlash would be extreme. I mean hell, there was quite a bit of backlash over the Escapist's ZP Flash game competition.

 

[Tdc2182]

Wow. If Activision gets this much hate then Bobby Kotick needs to resign.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Activision is looking for fresh talent and ideas...but mostly ideas.

-The "Right of First Refusal" business is simply there to ensure that Activision, and only Activision gets first dibs on property that technically isn't theirs to begin with (arguably as a token of good faith from the indie-developer to the "generous" Activision for hosting this competition and getting them recognition in the first place. So it is not entirely unfair).

Most of these Indie-devs probably cannot afford full-on legal service; but they need it. Badly.
Major kudos to Rosen for essentially providing that. Or at least a primer for it.

-As for the "you cannot enter anything that has been publicized before" bit..

There are many points to be made here, but I choose this one: No matter who wins this contest, Activision wants the power of marketing hype.
If a game already has gameplay elements published (even as a demo) it diminishes the hype considerably, because the gameplay is no longer an unknown.

Take Deus Ex: Human Revolution for example. Not one iota of actual gameplay has been published yet. The smart publisher keeps the gameplay trailer tucked away until the 11th hour, and shows only the most flashy bits to plant the notion of the entire game being that awesome (it often is not). Releasing information too soon impacts game sales (unless the gameplay is really GOOD. See Starcraft 2).

You want to force your consumers into buying into that hype so that they don't think the decision over; you don't want them to criticize your product. So don't give them anything to actually criticize, but keep them interested by announcing the premise of the game.

Remember: It's better to have a good EXECUTION of a game than to have a good PREMISE.
I can name a dozen games off the top of my head that had an awesome premise but awful execution. But two of those sold very well entirely because of hype.

All of that text boils down to this: Activision simply wants insurance against a bad investment. If they invest into the contest winner's game, they want to make sure that they can still trick people into buying it through better marketing even if it turns out to be a flop.