Activision's Kotick Discounts Downloadable Games

kukyfrope writes "In a recent interview with the New York Times, Activision Chief Executive Bobby Kotick claims to be optimistic about the future of gaming and the potential revenue of new gamers as many traditional gamers hit their 30's and 40's and are introducing their kids to the world of gaming. While Kotick has a bright outlook, he sees 'full downloadable games' as being 'so far in the future that it's almost incomprehensible.' This would seem to be contradicted by the success of online avenues such as Valve's Steam system, Xbox Live and Nintendo Wii's Virtual Console."

Comments

The Wii?

[Xaroth]

I'm sorry, but the success of the Nintendo Wii's Virtual Console? Has /. suddenly turned time in reverse, and is now duping stories from the future?

Direct2drive

[amazon10x]

While Kotick has a bright outlook, he sees 'full downloadable games' as being 'so far in the future that it's almost incomprehensible.'

Hmm, I guess he has not heard of Direct2Drive?

Taken out of context

[rabiddeity]

The original NYT article has the following quote (emphasis mine):

"The idea of full downloadable games is so far in the future that it's almost incomprehensible as an opportunity," Mr. Kotick said. But he added that there were more immediately plausible revenue opportunities from selling downloads of supplemental game levels or "characters, new weapons, new missions, or auctioning off places" in a virtual world.

So, as you can see, his words were taken a bit out of context. His opinion is that small downloadable content like expansions will sell, but not an entire 5GB game. Still a bit misguided, considering the success of Steam, but not as bad as the article makes it out to be.

These So-Called "Horseless Carriages" Are a Fad.

[McNally]

I've fallen away from the computer gaming world, but while travelling last week I paid a visit to an old college roommate who showed me "Geometry Wars", a $5 download for the XBox 360 that clearly so vividly captured the spirit of the great arcade games of my youth that when I returned to the home of the relatives I was visiting I downloaded it and spent half the weekend playing round after round with my equally-captivated nephew.

Perhaps Kotick is correct that the games which his company are producing are not yet suited for download, but that doesn't mean that nobody's games are suited for download.

Here's the key quote from the article, in my opinion:

However, because costs of development on next-gen platforms are going to hit $10 - $15 million or more, Kotick also sees the industry focusing on games with hit potential (those that could sell a million or more copies) rather than pumping out many more titles that may not perform as well commercially. He's previously spoken about how Activision specifically will focus on proven franchises.

This is exactly the strategy which has, at times, nearly destroyed the music and film industries -- focus only on copying the last big thing and don't spend any effort at all looking for the next big thing. I truly hope a bunch of net-aware $5-per-game upstarts eat their $50-per-megatitle business for lunch. It'd be the best thing to happen to gaming since I don't know when..

Damn misleading titles

[modemboy]

Man, from the title of this article I thought it was going to be about Activision discounting downloadable games to a price less than a box copy, as obviously their costs would be lower, passing the savings on. I'm still waiting for a company to do this, although I guess Steam sometimes is cheaper online.
So stop using homonyms in the article titles, especially confusing ones. I get dissapointed enough with the shit going on in our world, I don't need slashdot making me think I can get my games cheaper and then dashing my hopes with an opposite story...

P.S. this Kotick guy is an idiot.

Scared much?

[AudioEfex]

The only reason companies are afraid of downloads is because they know it's going to cut into their sixty-dollar off-the-shelf-games.

Just like articles where some publishers/companies discount so-called "retro-gaming" as being insignifigant in their eyes.

Well, I spent about an hour yesterday playing "Super Mario Brothers 3", and it was just as fun now as it was fifteen years ago. All of the suits making comments like this are so out of touch it's almost comical. They keep going after that shrinking "gotta have the newest, bestest, prettiest game NOW!" market and fail to realize there are tens of millions of us who gave up on gaming years ago because we were sick of all the "shitty but pretty" games where pretty pictures rank far above gameplay.

If only these guys would realize that spending enough to make a feature film on a game just isn't necessary, that paying 50 artists for every 1 actual game mechanics programmer is silly.

They need to look outside the box. Problem is, they created the box, and seem so lost in it that I don't know if anything is going to demonstrate otherwise for them until the box just busts apart and disintergrates.

AE