You mean the real world in which taking too many risks will result in your company going to shit? The real world where not everyone gets a chance at success despite what irrational dreamers might think? The real world where funding for a game doesn't just appear out of nowhere?Jaredin said:
He's not really silly. His job is to try and make as much money as he can. I can assume he's fairly good at this, being the CEO and all. As for his actual strategy, it's been tried and tested for hundreds of years and guess what? It works. In fact, the recent demise of All Points Bulletin shows this: new stuff is risky and is more likely to fail than a franchise.Le_Lisra said:
And when you're running an international multibillion-dollar corporation that employs thousands of people worldwide, you can take all the risks with your investors' money that you like.Robot Overlord said:
Wouldn't you agree, though, that it would be better for everyone if Activision was like, "So you want to make a big-budget new IP? Well, here's a small budget. Make a successful new XBLA-sized game, and we can talk." Rather than "Congratulations, the tenth game in your well-established, popular series made millions. Here's a ton of money to try something new."John Funk said:
While I admit to having no experience in the development of games, I don't think that letting someone develop a simple game with barely any time restraints is going to prove that they can handle a large budget and a large development team with the intent of making a new IP.Lvl 64 Klutz said:
Sure. As I understand it, though (and this is going to of course depend on who you believe), the onus is on the developer to say "this is what we want to work on."Lvl 64 Klutz said:
Since it was universally accepted that Bobby Kotick is to be hated and flamed at every opportunity.ItsAChiaotzu said:
Human nature also compels people to speak logically most of the time. Whether he plays it "safe" or not is not what I was targeting. His stupid manner of speech was. For someone with so much responsibility on a company and a recent propensity to get into public bouts with others, it seems to me as if he really doesn't think before he opens his mouth.John Funk said:
You're definitely right, but my view is that Kotick shouldn't make it seem as if Activision studios have all the freedom in the world when he's criticizing another company for running studios as they see fit. They both do the same thing, maybe in a different way, but it's the same thing. Whether you're telling a company what it can create, or managing how they create it, you're still controlling that developer in a significant way.dastardly said:On this one, I disagree.Tom Goldman said: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
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."
I'd really pay and wish to see how things would turn out is Activision went bankrupt in a day.ChromeAlchemist said:
Am I the only one going "huwaaaaa?" at this line? Isnt that basically saying if you create a new IP we'll tell you how to think about, how to design it, what to use in plot/action etc turning what could be a genuinely good new idea into a new name on something else?Bobby Kotick said:
Ahh, thanks. I did love BioShock, so I'll probably enjoy this too, and it looks pretty cool. I just don't really have much free time and a ton of games that I've bought and still haven't touched, so... come on cheap Steam sale in the future when I get free time!rockyoumonkeys said:
