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

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

You know, I think he's really just trying to troll the gaming community as a spare time kind of thing.

 

[Atmos Duality]

So what Kotick is saying here is "I support independent thought in my developers...as long as my company approves it."

Isn't that how most of these major publisher-developer relationships work already?
Good work stating the obvious Mr. Kotick. At least you proved you understand Gaming Business 101.

Oh, and New IPs can't even be given away, because then they would be second-hand goods, thus not new. I suppose he means it in a relative-manner though, so I'll just stop nitpicking here.

 

[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.

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

You are quite right; I misspoke. Does my question still hold merit when replacing "developer" with "publisher"?

 

[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.

You are quite right; I misspoke. Does my question still hold merit when replacing "developer" with "publisher"?

Yes. Yes it does.

And I can't answer your original question.

YOU HAVE DEFEATED ME!

 

[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.

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

You are quite right; I misspoke. Does my question still hold merit when replacing "developer" with "publisher"?

Yes. Yes it does.

And I can't answer your original question.

YOU HAVE DEFEATED ME!

Haha! Let's just call it mutually assured destruction, friend.

 

[Ninjamedic]

At the risk of sounding incredibly ignorant, what game is the picture in the article from?

 

[zombie711]

so is he saying brutal ledgend didnt earn the right to exsist?

 

[Le_Lisra]

Shut up you silly man...

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.

So no, he's not silly at all.

I never disputed that he's good at making money. What I dislike is his brash mouth. He is constantly spewing stuff that annoys or infuriates a lot of people and while it does not seem to hurt the sales that much it does not strike me as a sound strategy.

But since I haven't bought an EA IP in years my annoyance is limited to reading about him without anything else.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

Kotick or not, that statement does make sense.

However, I suppose that's where business and creative output might collide, something inevitable in the industry.

This is what I was thinking. As gamers, we look to the art, innovation and creativity. Far too often, we forget that the industry is just that, an industry. They are there to make money. Why would Activision support a new IP (which can have difficulties getting a good start) developed by a company that hasn't shown they can successfully put out a game in that genre?

And his point about better innovation with an already popular IP has a lot of merit. First of all, you don't have to waste a lot of time on basic functionality, because it's all there. More time to get creative. Second, you can try new ideas slowly and gradually which tends to get better customer response than new titles with all new features.

Good business means these studios stay profitable and able to put more games. More money in the bank means it's easier to take risks.

I think people need to get off their high horses when it comes to publishers. Is Bobby Kotick a jackass? Sure, I guess. I don't pay that much attention. Go out and play games and enjoy them and stop acting like a martyr because you're boycotting Activision, or EA, or whoever.

 

[Somethingfake]

By the gods, that man is getting gobby.

 

[Ldude893]

Damn, why is so much trash spewing from his mouth lately?

 

[SimuLord]

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

Tell that to ATVI's shareholders. Kotick, for all his flaws, knows how to stick a good number on the bottom line of the income statement.

 

[Dastardly]

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.

As much as I think the guy's a tool, that's not the impression I got from his statement. I think a lot of my thinking comes from the idea that people have an ironically LIMITED idea of what "freedom" is.

There are some people who seem to think that if you put ANY limitations on a studio, you've removed 100% freedom. You're just as constrictive as an EA-fascist-state, because you changed the main character's name or gender.

These people miss the massive innovation that can occur INSIDE a game. You're not telling them how to work control schemes or cutscenes or combat or anything of the sort. You're just telling them the face that goes on the box. To some folks, that seems massive, but to a lot of developers, it's not. They can use the "protection" of an extant IP, combined with the permissive practices of Activision, to experiment with many other things. And then, when they've proven the concept, they can apply it to a new IP.

I just think there is a major difference between telling someone HOW they'll create something than telling them which LABEL to put on it. One is about squashing innovation, and the other is about providing a measure of safety in an innovative environment.

As much as I don't like his PR tactics, Kotick is NOT Activision. They've got some good folks working there in the parent and child studios. Kotick just speaks the language of the money people, rather than acting as a voice for the developers themselves. In this case, though, he's got a point--it's a good way to ensure reasonable return, but still allow developers to innovate.

 

[Tom Goldman]

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.

As much as I think the guy's a tool, that's not the impression I got from his statement. I think a lot of my thinking comes from the idea that people have an ironically LIMITED idea of what "freedom" is.

There are some people who seem to think that if you put ANY limitations on a studio, you've removed 100% freedom. You're just as constrictive as an EA-fascist-state, because you changed the main character's name or gender.

These people miss the massive innovation that can occur INSIDE a game. You're not telling them how to work control schemes or cutscenes or combat or anything of the sort. You're just telling them the face that goes on the box. To some folks, that seems massive, but to a lot of developers, it's not. They can use the "protection" of an extant IP, combined with the permissive practices of Activision, to experiment with many other things. And then, when they've proven the concept, they can apply it to a new IP.

I just think there is a major difference between telling someone HOW they'll create something than telling them which LABEL to put on it. One is about squashing innovation, and the other is about providing a measure of safety in an innovative environment.

As much as I don't like his PR tactics, Kotick is NOT Activision. They've got some good folks working there in the parent and child studios. Kotick just speaks the language of the money people, rather than acting as a voice for the developers themselves. In this case, though, he's got a point--it's a good way to ensure reasonable return, but still allow developers to innovate.

Fair enough, I'm just wondering what the true difference really is between EA and Activision, and if it's even possible to find that out. Kotick saying "EA sux" is really the only statement he's ever made that makes me wonder if he knows what he's talking about or not. I seriously doubt there's that big of a difference overall between the two companies, but I don't work for either one, so I don't have much to go on there.

 

[RatRace123]

While that's a fine buisness strategy, the industry needs innovation and new IPs.

 

[Still Life]

Is it ethical that a publisher controls the creative output of a studio?

 

[teh_Canape]

of course they aren't given away, they're gotten by buying out whoever produces them and then forcing him/her to make one every year or taking away said IP and given to ANOTHER different company


*cough*Infinity Ward*cough*

btw, what does IP mean? =P
I know it's something about "new games", but eh, I never got an actual definition

 

[Burningsok]

It is a very good business strategy, but Kotick just has no idea what he's actually saying.
I just think he's a really good real life troll.

It is, but his statement added with his past history makes this whole thing a contradiction. You are a lot more likely to be unsuccessful when trying to innovate, that's the cost with trying to add something new to work with. Kotick wants new IP's but he will be greatly disappointed when he finds out that most developers won't be successful on the first innovative attempt.

 

[SelectivelyEvil13]

It very sensible to approach new IPs with caution as there are many games in general that could have a sequel or could expand into a proper series, but are poorly received or not developed responsibly. The variables down to reviews, release dates, or advertising can prove ruinous or explosively beneficial, increasing the risk for any new game without even considering who designed it. Singularity is a great example because as others have mentioned, it is not some terrible game but it was not marketed properly and it is known mostly for being like Bioshock.

I think what gets many people's skin is the constant reiterations like Call of Duty and [Expensive Music-Related Peripheral Here] Hero, what with their annual releases and minimal differentiation from the previous version. The Call of Duty formula is not bound to change, for example, so with each release that feels less refreshing than the last there will be attrition of interest. After only so many facsimiles of a franchise title, there will be a desire for something different out of the box. Once Black Ops is released, very few would be willing to shell out another $60 for a skin/plot/setting change for "Beckoning Response: Xenos" (CoD with aliens) compared to the possibly the same premise but with its own distinctive gameplay and balancing.

A new IP should stand on its own, so how can its new mechanics be implemented in already existing franchises without possibly altering those games drastically? If there is an idea for a new cover-based shooter, how can Call of Duty "check" any semblance of a different system to judge reception? Handing the reigns to a developer that cannot handle the IP is one thing, but where is the line drawn as far as innovation and shooting down ideas? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't a part of the Infinity Ward quagmire stir from a desire to branch out from the Call of Duty Franchise?


*On a side note, is Kotick just trying to get Activision's name brought to the discussion again and again to subconsciously make people think about Black Ops?