You know, I think he's really just trying to troll the gaming community as a spare time kind of thing.
You are quite right; I misspoke. Does my question still hold merit when replacing "developer" with "publisher"?Hubilub said:A developer putting out 4 original games a year and a publisher doing it are completely different things you know.TLatshaw said: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.
Yes. Yes it does.TLatshaw said:You are quite right; I misspoke. Does my question still hold merit when replacing "developer" with "publisher"?Hubilub said:A developer putting out 4 original games a year and a publisher doing it are completely different things you know.TLatshaw said: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.
Haha! Let's just call it mutually assured destruction, friend.Hubilub said:Yes. Yes it does.TLatshaw said:You are quite right; I misspoke. Does my question still hold merit when replacing "developer" with "publisher"?Hubilub said:A developer putting out 4 original games a year and a publisher doing it are completely different things you know.TLatshaw said: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.
And I can't answer your original question.
YOU HAVE DEFEATED ME!
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.Cpt_Oblivious 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:Shut up you silly man...
So no, he's not silly at all.
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?Sinclose said: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.
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.Korten12 said:oh shut-up Kotick, people should be able to make a new IP regardless.
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.Tom Goldman 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.
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.dastardly said: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.Tom Goldman 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.
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.
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.Pingieking said: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.