Kotick: New IPs Aren't Given Away, They're Earned

[ChromeAlchemist]

In this day and age where only AAA titles make the big money, it makes sense what he's saying. The majority of new IPs that have been introduced haven't been turned into franchises, probably because they weren't popular enough. Though to be fair I think it paints a rather negative picture of gamers in general if many new IPs aren't that popular.

On the other hand, fuck you Kotick, your silver tongue only concretes the fact that you're a tyrant.

His PR team must shit their pants every time he does an interview.

Laughed Out Loud. It's funny because it's true, he's gotten to the point where he makes so much money he doesn't even give a crap what he says. He could easily say "all of our target audience are drones" and it wouldn't matter.

"Selling more of the same is a safer bet then being innovative, hi Nintendo."

To be fair there's a difference between the two. Activision will keep bringing out CoD, Guitar Hero and so on whether people want them or not. Nintendo fans would riot if there was no sequel to their favourite franchise, and Nintendo manage to (arguably) innovate each time.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

So that is why we have so many Tony Hawk games... I still love them, but they have seemed rushed and meh since Underground 1.

Little off subject, but what game is that in the screen shot?

 

[John Funk]

Wow.

The man actually says something completely reasonable - games are expensive to bankroll, if you want to try something new you need to show me that you have earned the millions of dollars we are going to risk by supporting your completely untested new project - and people still leap on the guy like he just said, "Yeah, we believe that if you get a new IP you need to ravage the corpse of Mother Theresa with the still-beating heart of a newborn puppy."

Really?

Yeah, I know gamers hate him, but can we back off the mob mentality for a little bit and focus on what's being said instead of who's saying it?

 

[kebab4you]

"Selling more of the same is a safer bet then being innovative, hi Nintendo."

To be fair there's a difference between the two. Activision will keep bringing out CoD, Guitar Hero and so on whether people want them or not. Nintendo fans would riot if there was no sequel to their favourite franchise, and Nintendo manage to (arguably) innovate each time.

Yes I enjoyed being a rock and cloud a lot in super mario galaxy 2, such nifty people that came up with that ._.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

Little off subject, but what game is that in the screen shot?

Singularity. Pretty great game, actually, though 100% a Bioshock ripoff.

 

[Dastardly]

Kotick: New IPs Aren't Given Away, They're Earned

If an Activision studio hasn't proven its worth, it won't be creating a new IP.

Activision CEO Bobby Kotick says it likes the company's studios to retain their identities, but they might have to earn the right to do so first. Despite criticizing EA [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/103781-Kotick-Takes-a-Swing-at-EA] for not allowing its studios to retain their "independent vision," that same vision at Activision appears to come with a cost.

Speaking in Edge magazine, Kotick says that studios usually have to be "successful" to be able to go and create a new IP. "In the last year, we've taken four or five big bets - Blur [http://www.amazon.com/Singularity-Bonus-Exclusive-Graphic-Playstation-3/dp/B003M2T8IS/ref=sr_1_2?s=gateway&ie=UTF8&qid=1285682575&sr=8-2] were completely new," he said. "That's more than we usually would do, but in each case there was a very good reason why the developer chose to do it."

But these IPs aren't just given away. "Our process isn't that we say, 'Neversoft, you make a new IP,'" he continued. "When they wanted to make Gun [http://www.amazon.com/Gun-Xbox-360/dp/B0009Z3I0A/ref=sr_1_1?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1285682591&sr=1-1], they certainly earned the right to make new IP. They came in and said, 'This is our idea,' and we provide a lot of the research that will tell them how to think about the product."

"Then they go off and make the game they want to make, and we try and be supportive. You have to earn the right to do that, so it's usually the really successful studios that get the right."

He then says that typically Activision's successful studios haven't wanted to make anything else other than what made them popular. "The really insightful developers realise that the pathway to innovation is greater from a proven property that has an audience... There are so few new IPs that are introduced successfully."

Doesn't this sound a little bit like Activision allows an "independent vision" with reluctance? It's smart business sense, but with Kotick saying that EA stifles its studios by making them follow EA's rules, it seems somewhat hypocritical from a company doing that appears to be the same thing.

Source: CVG [http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=266952]

Permalink

On this one, I disagree.

He's got to ride the line between the game design innovators and the wallets that front the money and expect a return. Yes, he's a PR buffoon, but in this case he's right.

EA tends to absorb studios and make them all work and design like they were EA all along. Activision absorbs them, but provides more internal freedom. Of course the freedom will have boundaries, because Activision wants to know that the dollars they're sending out will be coming back with buddies.

He's dead-on to say that the possibilities for innovation are greater within an existing IP, from a development standpoint. You want to try some new game mechanic? Okay... but why not package the UNfamiliar in something the audience can relate to? Now they have a REASON to take a risk on buying the new thing. And then once it's been tested, you can use that newfound familiarity to introduce your new, untested IP.

EA's stance seems to be "no risks, period." Release the same sports game fitty-leven times and charge for each. Activision's stance, as described by Kotick in this article, is "Let's stick with one risk at a time for now."

 

[Lvl 64 Klutz]

I'm more disturbed by the fact that he considers 4 new IP's a year to be extravagant.

 

[Jodah]

I think Kotick subscribes to the idea that any press is good press. Everyone hates him but we always talk about him.

 

[fulano]

He speaks in odd forking ways.

So, only successful studios earn the right to do new IP's, right? That's his logic. But they don't. They, somehow, seem to prefer to stick with proven properties that have an already built in audience.

Uh, ok?

So what about those studios that are not "successful," meaning they don't earn the right to work on new IP's, which then they'd, in the majority, not make because they'd opt for sequels, do? I guess that leaves them with Sequels, right?

But wait, since they haven't earned the right to work on new IP's, doesn't that mean that they are not, well, successful? Doesn't that mean, then, that they are handing the larger share of their development of sequels which everyone is doing 'cuz it has a larger share of the market, to mostly shitty studios that can't earn the right to work on new IP's?

Ugh...

Basically, out of Kotick's mouth: Most of Activision's sequels are done by unsuccessful studios meaning most of Activision's sequels ought to be unsuccessful games. Meaning: Activision is in the bussiness of making mostly unsuccessful games?

I rest my case.

Mr. Kotick, you seem like a fucking idiot.

Sorry, but this massive dumbassery is what has tipped me over towards disliking the guy. Isn't he supposed to be a CEO? Oh, wait, that's pretty much normal these days...

 

[TLatshaw]

Of course there will be reluctance on new IPs! You'd probably be a little reluctant to take risks, too, if you were the one investing quite a lot of money in them.

And actually, yes. I would consider 4 new IPs from one company in a year to be somewhat high. If anyone knows of a developer who's put out more than 4 in a year, please let me know.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

So you have to have conformed to the company line to be able to be individual? Hmm...not sure if that's the best way to encourage new ideas and free thinking. I mean DJ hero isn't exactly a huge step from gituar hero is it? Nor is blur "NFS done with weapons!" I'll grant prototype was original, mind.

And Prototype didn't sell well I liked it though

It kind of proves Kotic's point. DJ hero is coming up on 2 million sold and I'm not sure about Blur though. The one origional game of the lot didn't sell unfortunately.

The same thing happened at EA. Mirror's Edge was unique but didn't sell and Dead Space was a critical darling that sold meh. I think the sequel will garner much more public attention. It's true that sequels have more guarenteed profit, but hey, IPs have the potential to take off. I say the more original ideas the better.

 

[John Funk]

Wow.

The man actually says something completely reasonable - games are expensive to bankroll, if you want to try something new you need to show me that you have earned the millions of dollars we are going to risk by supporting your completely untested new project - and people still leap on the guy like he just said, "Yeah, we believe that if you get a new IP you need to ravage the corpse of Mother Theresa with the still-beating heart of a newborn puppy."

Really?

Yeah, I know gamers hate him, but can we back off the mob mentality for a little bit and focus on what's being said instead of who's saying it?

I think people, or us at least, don't need to focus upon something that we already know well enough without the man saying it. Kotick isn't the only guy who has said developing a game, specially an IP, is an expensive, and in the latter case, a risky venture. EAs proven that point already with just the work on The Old Republic, and WoW was somewhere around roughly $80 million I believe.

Sure he's saying something true, but even the Devil speaks the truth at times, and in Koticks case it tends to be a case of not doing as ye preach.

Until we have someone who has worked under Acti-Blizz and Koticks gaze, and can prove it, and discuss his experiences without the bomb implanted in his skull and pelvic bone going off, we'll never truly know though how things actually go. We only have the baseless comments he spews out 80% of the time, accounts of developers clashing with him (as is the case with Schafer), and like Dex pointed out, the numerous times they've taken the rough-edged axe to companies for even making a game that sells only decently.

How is TOR in any way a new IP? Even if it hadn't been based on one of the most popular IPs in history, it's based off of the KotOR games.

New IPs are risky. We all know this.

I don't think it's quite as clear-cut as "Kotick takes the axe to companies for making a game that sells only decently." Activision was dissapointed with Singularity's sales [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_%28game%29#Reception], but there was no great axing at Raven to my knowledge - that is, beyond the typical "you're done making a game, you get let go" that is sadly too common at a lot of developers. Same goes with Blur and Bizarre Creations.

So given that, is it unreasonable to conclude that there were probably other factors in deciding who gets laid off when? No, not really. Maybe Developer X was grossly overbudget, maybe they can't justify spending so much on headcount, etc. I'm just saying, looking at the situation as "the greedy CEO who fires people for the hell of it" is a gross oversimplification of the situation that helps nobody.

He speaks in odd forking ways.

It's way simpler than that. As I understand it, a studio can choose to work on something safe (a sequel) or something risky (a new IP). If they decide they want to make a new IP, they have to prove to the people funding them that they can be successful in order to justify the risk. If they can, they get the green light. If they can't justify it, they don't.

Is it so unsurprising that people would rather do something safe and almost guaranteed to be successful? That's just human nature.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Exactly how did Radical Entertainment "earn" their right to make Prototype?

All they have ever done is make unimpressive games that weren't even all that popular.

Other than that nitpick, he's pretty reasonable in what he says.

 

[Jared]

oh shut-up Kotick, people should be able to make a new IP regardless.

Agreed.

he needs to get his out out of his backside and live in the real world....

 

[ultimateownage]

In the last year, we've taken four or five big bets - Singularity, Prototype, DJ Hero and Blur were completely new, that's more than we usually would do, but in each case there was a very good reason why the developer chose to do it. Our process isn't that we say, 'Neversoft, you make a new IP,' When they wanted to make Gun, they certainly earned the right to make new IP. They came in and said, 'This is our idea,' and we provide a lot of the research that will tell them how to think about the product. Then they go off and make the game they want to make, and we try and be supportive. You have to earn the right to do that, so it's usually the really successful studios that get the right. The really insightful developers realise that the pathway to innovation is greater from a proven property that has an audience... There are so few new IPs that are introduced successfully.

Translated:

No one should have a chance to make a new IP unless they've made at least five Call Of Duty games and two Guitar Hero games!

Shut up Bobby and stop ruining your company's reputation with your massive fucking gob.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Of course there will be reluctance on new IPs! You'd probably be a little reluctant to take risks, too, if you were the one investing quite a lot of money in them.

And actually, yes. I would consider 4 new IPs from one company in a year to be somewhat high. If anyone knows of a developer who's put out more than 4 in a year, please let me know.

A developer putting out 4 original games a year and a publisher doing it are completely different things you know.