Slashdot Mirror


New Call of Duty Titles Announced, Fired Devs Sue For Name

eldavojohn writes "Activision has announced new Call of Duty titles while fired Infinity Ward Developer leads Jason West and Vince Zampella sue them for the rights to the name. According to Activision, 'The company intends to expand the Call of Duty brand with the same focus seen in its Blizzard Entertainment business unit. This will include a focus on high-margin digital online content and further[ing] the brand as the leading action entertainment franchise in new geographies, new genres and with new digital business models.' Ars opines that Activision is set to over-saturate the market with tons of CoD titles similar to how it expertly brought down Guitar Hero."

134 comments

  1. Some very rich lawyers by assemblerex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    will probably be the only end result, after ten years.

    1. Re:Some very rich lawyers by Seakip18 · · Score: 1

      And Activision stock holders.

      Here's what'll probably happen:

      They'll burn through the CoD franchise, essentially cashing in on the name. Folks'll buy the first wave of games and DLC crap, perhaps the second, before realizing it is not worth the bits they bought a license to use. Just look at the Guitar Hero franchise to get an idea.

      Meanwhile, Activision stock prices go through the roof. Any smart investor will cash out, which I'd be surprised if it wasn't Activision's top tier of management. Eventually, the CoD brand splats like hot crap on a tin roof, and Blizzard alone won't be able to keep Activision open.

      Kotick and Co. will get to keep their money as it'll be a difficult to prove they were manipulating stock prices. I mean, after all, they were just doing what they thought was the best for the company. How the heck would you prove they deliberately pumped the brand to make a buck? Is that even illegal if they own the rights to it?

      --
      import system.cool.Sig;
    2. Re:Some very rich lawyers by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile innovation will continue and businesses will choose to operate over here because our country has the best IP laws.

      I hate Software Patent as much as the next guy, but at least we have some means besides a more powerful copyright to protect our software without divulging anything to the world (GPL).

    3. Re:Some very rich lawyers by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Insider trade is illegal, and selling your stock just before it hits rock bottom sure smells like it if you're the CEO of the company in question. It all depends on how tight the US laws are concerning insider trade.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Some very rich lawyers by Seakip18 · · Score: 1

      The problem is....where do you draw the line between insider trading and feigned CEO incompetence?

      The picture I'd create is this:

      I needed money for a side project investment so I divest myself of Activision shares to invest into a new company or something profitable. Then, through no "before-hand" knowledge or direct action of my own, my company goes under. Sure, I "might" have made some bad choices, resulting in a brand cash cow drying up, but that's not a deliberate action such as pump'n'dump or cooking the books. Plus I can always blame the following:
      1. Pirates steal our software, making our sales model nonviable
      2. Gamers "taste" have changed. They no longer want what we have(Probably because we pushed 10 crappy games out in the past 1.5 years)
      3. Current Economic situation means $60+ games are not being bought.

      I mean, who cares if folks call me an incompetent CEO? I managed to make myself millions and head a studio that made several GOTY games. That can buy a startup studio with a good idea and a lotta ear plugs....

      A person can create situations that makes failure look like no fault on their own. Just look at so many IT projects.

      --
      import system.cool.Sig;
    5. Re:Some very rich lawyers by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Didn't Activision's stock already peak with the release of CoD MW2?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    6. Re:Some very rich lawyers by Seakip18 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nope. It actually peaked in July 2008 after merging with Blizzard, but had a 2:1 split in September that same year. Currently, it's inline with the rest of studio's performance in the past year.

      Another point:
      Kotick has been CEO of Activision since 1991. He had a benefits package of $20 million, $900K of which is salary and $5 Million in bonus. The rest was stock and options. (source:here )

      So right now...you've got a CEO who probably has a crap ton of stock, no real passion for the products his company produces and is almost in his 50's. Coupled with is his almost sadistic view on video game making, I wouldn't put it past him to do some internal company manipulation to make his worth higher.

      --
      import system.cool.Sig;
  2. Activision strikes again and the site goes down :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Server Error in '/' Application."

    Yup, the G4 link is dead already.

  3. I really don't understand. by bistromath007 · · Score: 5, Funny

    All that really has to be done to solve 70% of the problems with the game industry is assassinating Bobby Kotick. Why won't somebody get on it already?

    1. Re:I really don't understand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever heard of the legend of the hydra?

    2. Re:I really don't understand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a new line of IP for a independent game company to start. Want to place bets that Activision would still buy it? Heh...

  4. Might I suggest the title? by anomnomnomymous · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Call of Duty: Activision Warfare

    On a more serious note: I'm feeling a bit doublesided about the whole debacle of Activision firing Jason West and Vince Zampella: On one hand it's a shame to see that two apparently talented developers are so easy to fire, on the other hand: They brought this onto themselves when they decided to sell the company to Activision.
    If they'd done some proper research they would have seen how horrible Activision has been treating their studios/games the past few years (loads of developers have been fleeing to other publishers), so this shouldn't come as a surprise.

    I still can't understand why IW choose to let them be bought out though: They were/are a very succesful studio, and they sold for a very low price. Sounded like a dumb move at the time, and after hearing about the incredible sales figures for CoD:MW2, it sounds even more stupid that they've taken that step.

    --
    When you shoot a mime, do you use a silencer?
    1. Re:Might I suggest the title? by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      They signed with Activision 7 years ago...

    2. Re:Might I suggest the title? by EvilMonkeySlayer · · Score: 4, Funny

      I prefer "Modern Lawfare" or "Call Of Jury".

      Or you could combine.. "Call Of Jury: Modern Lawfare".

    3. Re:Might I suggest the title? by quantumplacet · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except they weren't a successful studio when they got bought, they were a small studio trying to release their first game. and at the time, activision was not nearly as reviled as they are now. if you're a brand new developer and one of the largest publishers in the world offers to buy you but let you maintain creative control, you don't say no.

    4. Re:Might I suggest the title? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make sure to get the 'maintain creative control' bit in writing, apparently.

    5. Re:Might I suggest the title? by Obyron · · Score: 5, Funny

      As opposed to the newly announced Activision title, Call of Jewry-- telling the tale of two Polish Jews hardened by the camps who have escaped, and are now killing their way toward the Fuhrerbunker one. fucking. nazi. at a time. They're calling it a masterpiece of historical authenticity, and have already announced DLC where you can buy new single player maps, each with a prominent Third Reich figure as a boss, which you can horribly murder a la Rockstar's Manhunt games crossed with Bloodrayne.

      One level is already generating controversy before it has even been released. Our steely antiheroes are caught in an SS Paranormal Division experiment and are flung back in time through an unstable portal. It is February 1904, days before the birth of Reinhard Heydrich-- the Butcher of Prague, and architect of the Final Solution. You are tasked with tracking down the pregnant mother before the temporal portal collapses and you are destroyed in the process. Will you kill the unborn child, kill the mother, or will you show the compassion that was not shown to you? What changes will your decision cause in Activision's dynamic gameplay system?

      Don't miss Activision's newest blockbuster: Call of Jewry -- "Never Forget. Never Again."

      Quintin Tarantino is reportedly having a boxing match with Uwe Boll to see who will direct the film adaption.

      (If Activision is reading this, you can license this idea for a modest fee... It almost saddens me that I would probably pay money to play this.)

      --
      --Obyron
    6. Re:Might I suggest the title? by twistedsymphony · · Score: 5, Insightful

      According the legal brief that IW filed they didn't "SELL" to Activision, Activision simply bought them out. Also after MW1 West and Zampella signed a contract with Activision that gave them exclusive rights to the "Modern Warfare" name, stating that no game can hold that title, nor can any Call of duty game take place after the Vietnam War without written consent from both of them. It also promised them royalties for for any past or present Call of Duty game or any game built on an engine developed by IW. It also promised them creative freedoms to explore new IPs instead of just churning out COD games. The only "hitch" was that the two had to make another Modern Warfare (MW2) and that they had to deliver it by November 15th..

      Well, they delivered the game, and did so 5 days before it was due. honestly I think even if Activision has valid grounds for letting them go, they still owe them what was promised in that contract since it the two of them clearly met their end of the bargain. Kotaku has the whole legal briefing... it's eye opening

      The REAL issue seems to be that Activision was afraid that the two were going to jump ship and go back to EA... The legal brief also goes into details of ridiculous month-long interrogation techniques Activision put the IW developers though trying to find evidence against West and Zampella. The final termination was based on comments made by them at a meeting over a year ago, and they were given 6 hours to "respond" to the charge of "insubordination" without being told what the charge was actually about.

      It's like a husband suspecting that his wife is cheating, turned the house upside down looking for evidence, and then the only "evidence" he can find is an off handed email from a year ago and kicks her out saying "you know what you've done"...

    7. Re:Might I suggest the title? by Eraesr · · Score: 1

      They were a splinter group of 2015, Inc. who were responsible for Medal of Honor - Allied Assault, then published by Electronic Arts. And back then it was indeed EA that was the evil company so they left 2015 and formed Infinity Ward. EA then milked MoH to death and IW were acquired by Activision where they made Call of Duty. Seems history is about to repeat itself. Back to EA maybe? ;-)

    8. Re:Might I suggest the title? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I've laughed harder at this comment than any other I've encountered before and yet, I find myself almost wistful that this isn't and probably will never be a real game.

    9. Re:Might I suggest the title? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did one better -- they got it in a legal document, as part of their contract.

    10. Re:Might I suggest the title? by MiniMike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Quintin Tarantino is reportedly having a boxing match with Uwe Boll to see who will direct the film adaption.

      I think more people would prefer to see that.

    11. Re:Might I suggest the title? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Soap, file that injunction NOW!"

      "Ramirez, take point on the deposition."

      "Hooah"

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:Might I suggest the title? by greyline · · Score: 4, Funny

      Call of Duty: Let's Run this Shit into the Ground

    13. Re:Might I suggest the title? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      I picture Doctor Faustus crying out to a judge "But I made the deal with the devil in good faith!! I couldn't have known he would screw me!"

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    14. Re:Might I suggest the title? by idontgno · · Score: 4, Funny

      I would pay money for that. And I want Tarantino to smuggle a knife into the fight, because there is absolutely NO WAY Boll should be allowed to win.

      And by "knife" I mean "a Hattori Hanzo sword".

      (Stupid /. not accepting the long-o HTML entity "ō".)

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    15. Re:Might I suggest the title? by AndrewNeo · · Score: 1

      This sounds more like a Visceral game than Activision! (Joystiq Podcast has a segment every once and a while where people suggest ideas for 'Visceral' games, just like this. You should totally send it in.)

    16. Re:Might I suggest the title? by pickupjojo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or "Modern War Fair".

      --
      Joffrey
    17. Re:Might I suggest the title? by grapeape · · Score: 2, Informative

      Thats true if you go back to the recent past but if you go back to the time when IW was purchased, Activision was the less evil of the big 3 (EA, Ubisoft and Activision). In the time since, EA has worked hard to improve its image, taking chances on new IP, taking a more hands off approach with developers, listening to customer feedback, etc. Meanwhile Activision has gutted 7 studios, Radical and Neversoft then they closed Underground Studios, Luxoflux, Shaba Studios and Red Octane. Add in Kotick's public "supposed-misquotes" such as

      "really [reward] profit and nothing else"

      "skepticism, pessimism, and fear" is promoted within the company with the goal of "keeping people focused on the deep depression."

      "The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games."

      The big difference now is that back in the day when EA was the most evil, they were buying up rights to game genres (NFL, etc) and rehashing old titles with nothing new to offer. There was really no one person to focus nerd rage at. With activision gamers have their very own Darth Vader...minus the cool costume.

    18. Re:Might I suggest the title? by KnownIssues · · Score: 1

      I still can't understand why IW choose to let them be bought out though

      Apparently you don't understand the appeal of even more money.

    19. Re:Might I suggest the title? by KnownIssues · · Score: 1

      According the legal brief that IW filed they didn't "SELL" to Activision, Activision simply bought them out.

      This is a sincere question. How can you buy something that isn't for sale? Unless you're the government.

    20. Re:Might I suggest the title? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Totally worth it.

      I laughed.

    21. Re:Might I suggest the title? by Ma8thew · · Score: 1

      Usually companies have investors. Activision just needed to buy from enough investors that they own more than 50% of IW.

    22. Re:Might I suggest the title? by ClosedEyesSeeing · · Score: 1

      Or you could combine.. "Call Of Jury: Modern Lawfare".

      Phoenix Wright in:
      Call of Jury: Modern Lawfare

    23. Re:Might I suggest the title? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I want Tarantino to smuggle a knife into the fight, because there is absolutely NO WAY Boll should be allowed to continue breathing unaided.

      FTFY.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    24. Re:Might I suggest the title? by Ma8thew · · Score: 1

      I think they could manage without a publisher. If they can retain the name then its cachet alone is worth more than the marketing forces of a multi billion dollar company. As far as funding goes, VCs invest in the most brainless stuff all the time, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 isn't exactly a risky investment.

    25. Re:Might I suggest the title? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure that's called Wolfenstien, and your too late, Activision already wreaked the crap out of that.

      http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/930284-wolfenstein/index.html

      Ah, ET how I miss you... oh wait I guess I can still go play that... sweet!

    26. Re:Might I suggest the title? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The REAL issue seems to be that Activision was afraid that the two were going to jump ship and go back to EA...

      If this is true, then Activision is run by insane people and their stockholders should be very, very worried.

      It's not necessarily insane to fire employees. Even employees who are really good at what they do. There are times and places where shit like that happens and in the cold calculation of business you may calculate that it may make you more pennies to fire them than it does to keep them around. It happens.

      But it IS insane to fire employees because you're worried that they're going to quit and go work for a competitor. That's just completely batshit nuts.

    27. Re:Might I suggest the title? by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      6 hours to "respond" & without being told what the charge was actually about. mm in the UK that would be an automatic win at an IT (Industrial Tribuneral)

    28. Re:Might I suggest the title? by Obyron · · Score: 1

      Yeah I was going for shades of Wolfenstein, Bloodrayne, Manhunt, and some even more depraved and exploitative ideas that none of those three quite managed to harness. We have charted the heights of video gaming, but I am convinced that we have yet to fully sound the depths.

      --
      --Obyron
    29. Re:Might I suggest the title? by ryantmer · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I'm fairly sure that I would play this. Hell, I would even buy it!*

      *If, in the event that the prospect of someone buying a game has caused heart palpitations, cardiac arrest, stroke, unwanted pregnancy, athlete's foot, or a feeling that the world has officially gone nuts, rest assured that I was joking.

      --
      Whatever it is, it's notablog.
    30. Re:Might I suggest the title? by Inschato · · Score: 1

      Flagship Studios thought they could do without a publisher, too.

    31. Re:Might I suggest the title? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      "Remember, no German!"

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    32. Re:Might I suggest the title? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      I think they should go for a new franchise. I'm thinking of "Nazi Bastard", the game that's exactly like its title. Think of a crossover between a random WW2 FPS and Postal. The story would be epic^H^H^H^H par for the course for a WW2 game: You are a nazi and a bastard. In fact, you're considered a huge asshole even by the worst the nazis have to offer. You shoot and piss your way through the allied forces and kill their leaders - and then you march on Berlin and kill Hitler as well because you feel like it.

      And then they release DLC playing in the modern age (because you're such an asshole even death won't touch you) and your mission is to kill the game's original dev team so management can create twenty shitty sequels without them whining about it.

      Hey, great idea: We just have all the WW2 FPSes use the same multiplyer system! The gamers are going to love it when their Call of Jewry Holocaust survivor gets pissed to death by a Nazi Bastard Parashitter (one of the exciting NB multiplayer classes)! Of course the lobby system will ensure that you never know what kinds of players you will play against for extra excitement!

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    33. Re:Might I suggest the title? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, the way our goddamned laws are set up in the US, pretty much any company can buy your land for pretty much any reason. even if you refuse to sell, they can take it, and give you "reasonable market value" which, btw, just went way down since this area will have little to no resale value after we get done with it.
      Google Mississippi nissan plant. It really upset a lot of people down here.

    34. Re:Might I suggest the title? by Ma8thew · · Score: 1

      Do elaborate.

    35. Re:Might I suggest the title? by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      It's like a husband suspecting that his wife is cheating, turned the house upside down looking for evidence, and then the only "evidence" he can find is an off handed email from a year ago and kicks her out saying "you know what you've done"...

      Perhaps, if his wife has been bickering about keeping a separate bank account and flips back and forth between keeping his last name and dropping it. It seems really clear that the wife in this scenario isn't planning to stay faithful, even if there's no proof that she has yet strayed.

      There are some articles linked to the one you linked that talk about some goings-on over there. Your depiction that only includes this piece of the story does make it seem as if Activision is crazy, but the whole picture seems less so.

      I do wonder if they didn't overreact, but it seems clear that IW was seeking to branch MW from CoD. They may or may not have been doing so in a bid to break away and take 'their' title with them. If Activision fired them to make that impossible, then I'd say that is likely wise business. If IW's contracts aren't such that this kind of move is impossible, then they probably need to hire a better law firm to draw those sorts of things up.

      Sounds like the courts will be the ones that eventually get to the bottom of it.

    36. Re:Might I suggest the title? by MBCook · · Score: 1

      Call of Duty: Turnabout?

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    37. Re:Might I suggest the title? by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      Since I saw this the other day I may try to make that.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    38. Re:Might I suggest the title? by kalirion · · Score: 1

      There is no way Activision would have thought this would end without a lawsuit. The question is, what do they have up their sleeves if they think they can win?

    39. Re:Might I suggest the title? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      I'm fine with that as long as someone with real auteur talent, like James Cameron, is there to stick his head through Tarantino's chest from behind afterwards.

      I wouldn't even mind if Cameron didn't say anything afterwards.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    40. Re:Might I suggest the title? by Bakkster · · Score: 1

      Except, Faust goes to heaven at the end of the play. Mephistopheles busts his balls for him around the world, and even though he technically wins their bargain, God puts the kibosh on it all and takes Faust anyway. Great moral, huh?

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
  5. It's all about control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In their countersue Jason West and Vince Zampella claim that they have the right for "creative authority and approval for any "Modern Warfare" titles set in the post-Vietnam era, near future, or distant future".

    Is it coincidence that Activision is announcing the development of several COD games at the same time?

    What I suspect happened is that Activision just started developing these games without consulting Jason West and Vince Zampella, and then went to talk to them thinking they could just force them to do what they wanted.
    When they refused, they got fired.

  6. Oversaturation of the Brand by Crock23A · · Score: 1

    I know the real story is the lawsuit and the mud-slinging but let's not forget what Activision has done to the Guitar Hero franchise. There are like 25 games out in 5 years and they have milked it to death. Now COD (7) is on the way and you can bet there will be spin-offs and the like all over the place.

    1. Re:Oversaturation of the Brand by mayko · · Score: 1

      As a business do they really care about over-saturating a brand if they can get rich doing it? I'd like to think they do, but I'm more inclined to think they have people who do nothing but figure out what approach will make the most money. In the end those conclusions drive development.

    2. Re:Oversaturation of the Brand by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Of course they should care, once they over-saturate a brand they effectively kill it.

    3. Re:Oversaturation of the Brand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but I'm more inclined to think they have people who do nothing but figure out what approach will make the most money.

      How evil! How dare they try to make the most money from their products!

    4. Re:Oversaturation of the Brand by Eraesr · · Score: 1

      The problem is not that they want to make money, the problem is that they want to make money by any means necessary. Quality will suffer from this and people will see a franchise they love and that's associated with quality and cutting-edge crash down into mediocreness and beyond that. Activision's management has no interest in creating quality games and that becomes a problem when they force their mindset onto development studios that otherwise would've created excellent high quality games.

    5. Re:Oversaturation of the Brand by GTarrant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They should, but they do not.

      If there's anything that the last few years of watching the American corporate world could teach us, it's that the days of building a business that can stand the test of time, build a brand, and ensure that they are set for the future are essentially over. That used to be the way to make a successful corporation and to run a successful business, and for a small business, it generally still is.

      However, taking a look at "big business" these days, it's all about "What can be done to maximize profits NOW, even if it means sacrificing more later?" (Or even, in the case of some of the big banks and such, even if it meant completely destroying the future prospects of the company).

      Sometimes that makes sense - making $X now is better than $1.5*X two years from now. But with some of these franchises - Guitar Hero for example - you're talking about making $1.5*X now vs. $X every year or so for the next long while.

      In the past year or so they've released what, three Guitar Hero games? Or is it four? I've lost count. Since Guitar Hero 3, anyway, they've released Guitar Hero Metallica, Guitar Hero Aerosmith, Guitar Hero World Tour, Guitar Hero Van Halen, Guitar Hero Smash Hits, and Guitar Hero 5. It got to the point that last year they announced a deal where if you bought Guitar Hero 5 within the first month of release, they would send you Guitar Hero Van Halen, when it was released, -for free-. The brand has been diluted to the point that no one gives a damn about it anymore. It was the goose that laid golden eggs and they whipped it to death so they could get two eggs today instead of twenty over time.

      Will this happen with Call of Duty? It can. And when it does it happens quite suddenly, and given Activision's recent stated goals of simply taking franchises and running them into the ground, while not really developing new ones, they may find they suddenly have nothing left that will make money. At least EA has their sports games that they know will sell yearly. If Call of Duty and Guitar Hero go down the drain, then you are left essentially with the Blizzard titles keeping things going.

    6. Re:Oversaturation of the Brand by mayko · · Score: 1

      What if 'killing' the brand is slow, painful, and yields hundreds of millions of dollars?

    7. Re:Oversaturation of the Brand by mayko · · Score: 1

      but I'm more inclined to think they have people who do nothing but figure out what approach will make the most money.

      How evil! How dare they try to make the most money from their products!

      That wasn't my point. I don't think they are _evil_. I was pointing out that they are a business. They aren't artists, they aren't social workers, and the ones who make decisions aren't passionate developers either... they market and sell products and answer to investors. Those answers are in dollars and cents, not "We felt a release of COD14 wouldn't have done justice to the franchise, so we canceled it."

    8. Re:Oversaturation of the Brand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "then you are left essentially with the Blizzard titles keeping things going."

      As if they give a shit? Blizzard can EASILY keep Activision afloat. WoW is a massive cash cow, not to mention SCII and DIII...

      Activision doesn't need the CoD or the Guitar Hero IPs to keep going, they just wanted to milk them for as much immediate money as they could. They should have slowed down and stretched them both out, they would have made a LOT more money in the long run, but the baby boomer assholes that are in charge of these corporations are just trying to make as much money as they possibly can _right now_ so they can leave filthy rich.

    9. Re:Oversaturation of the Brand by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I've made up my own Guitar Hero-style game.

      I go out to a rock night-club, get hammered, and pretend I'm playing the game. As long as you're not the drummer, you look just like everyone else there.

      Nobody likes the drummer.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    10. Re:Oversaturation of the Brand by 2PAIRofACES · · Score: 1

      It's funny you should mention the short sightedness of larger corporations since a friend and I were talking about that very thing just yesterday. I came up with the Idea of a sliding scale of capital gain's tax. Start it at 90% for stocks held 1 year, and drop it by 15% a year thereafter all the way to 0. While there are certainly drawbacks, we could be damned sure that those in charge would be singing a tune of what can I do to make us better in 5 years as opposed to what can I do to bump our stock for today.

      --
      "you know why? Because we got the bomb, thats why" -Dennis Leary
    11. Re:Oversaturation of the Brand by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      What if not killing the brand would yield billions?

    12. Re:Oversaturation of the Brand by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      And that is the #1 problem with modern-day business executives: it's pretty damn clear that companies would make more damn money if they stopped sacrificing the future to reap profits this year. I will never understand why businesses which are run for profit are choosing strategies that result in less money in the end.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    13. Re:Oversaturation of the Brand by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      As a business do they really care about over-saturating a brand if they can get rich doing it?

      A business with a long-term strategy might.

      The management of most publicly traded companies has a pretty strong incentive to seek the maximum short-term return, even at the expensive of what otherwise might be more valuable long-term assets, since its very common for active direct investors manage their own long-term interests by trying to make sure their money is always in the place with the best short-term prospects, and moving it out if that doesn't seem to be the case.

    14. Re:Oversaturation of the Brand by Jesus_666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This quarter? Remember, possible future earnings are absolutely inconsequential. Short-term profit is the only profit. A strategy that sacrifices short-term gains for long-term gains is not perceived as a good strategy.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    15. Re:Oversaturation of the Brand by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      If Call of Duty and Guitar Hero go down the drain, then you are left essentially with the Blizzard titles keeping things going.

      So? 2013 is going to be exciting with Warcraft 4, Warcraft 4: Revenge of the Orcs, Warcraft 4: Revenge of the Orcs 2 and Warcraft iPhone Trivia. And 2015 we will finally get Sarah Kerrigan's Super Zerg Soccer 2 Turbo Aiur Championship Edition.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    16. Re:Oversaturation of the Brand by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      I would be willing to bet Warcraft doesn't get another RTS released ever. WoW is still to open ended for that.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    17. Re:Oversaturation of the Brand by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      They'll just turn the WoW low-level quests into an RTS. So what if that means the RTS is just a few random battles that don't mean anything for the entire war? The gamers loved it in WoW so they'll love it in WC4, right?

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  7. I must have missed something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ars opines that Activision is set to over-saturate the market with tons of CoD titles similar to how it expertly brought down Guitar Hero.

    Brought down? It's still wildly popular.

  8. EA bounty? by wct · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Interesting quote from Vince Zampella's profile on LinkedIn:

    "...Rumor in the industry is that EA placed a million-dollar bounty for snapping up any IW studio lead, like Vince. Just the fact that the rumor is out there should speak volumes about how badly people want Vince working on their products"

    Jesse Heinig, Production Coordinator, Infinity Ward
    reported to Vince at Infinity Ward

  9. Mother Fluckers. by Pojut · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Fuck you, Activision. Modern Warfare was awesome. Modern Warfare 2 was ok. At this point, the series has no where to go but downhill. Why kill it like this?

    Fuck you, Activision. Fuck you for becomming the new EA. Fuck you for treating your employees like shit. Fuck you for diluting the gaming industry and making it all about the money even more than it already was.

    Fuck you.

    1. Re:Mother Fluckers. by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      Modern Warfare was a pretty big step up. CoD 2 & 3 kind of sucked. The original is still by far the best, IMO, followed by MW, which was mostly good due to its quirky levels--the execution, the gunship, the nuke, the sniper level that mostly just made me want to play the much-better STALKER:SoC again. Hell, I'd play a whole game of gunship levels.

      Haven't played MW2 yet, though. Does sound like they want to turn the franchise in to MoH post-Allied Assault, which means it'll go straight to shit.

    2. Re:Mother Fluckers. by Pojut · · Score: 1

      The weird thing about MW2 is that it is bigger and more intense in almost every way than Modern Warfare was...but it feels like a game, not like an experience. Surviving to the end of a mission in the first Modern Warfare felt like a goddamn accomplishment; it left you drained physically and emotionally. Surviving to the end of a mission in Modern Warfare 2 feels like you finished a level...nothing more.

      You can read my full review of Modern Warfare 2 right here.

    3. Re:Mother Fluckers. by blankoboy · · Score: 1

      Well said and to that I add: I will never purchase another Activision published game again. I have better things to do than support money grubbing assholes. Fuck that.

    4. Re:Mother Fluckers. by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      I agree that the campaign in MW2 was worse - personally I think it's because they went way too over the top. I mean the first one the stories were a bit out there but still somewhat believable. In the second one...no. Not at all. But I do think there are a lot of things they did right. The beginning of the campaign was great. The multiplayer missions are great - even though the majority of the time I'm playing them solo. I can't compare the online play as I've only done that in MW2. But anyway, I think they got a lot of things right, they were just trying too hard to be more intense and more shocking than the original. And they were trying to do it too many times.

    5. Re:Mother Fluckers. by Pojut · · Score: 1

      I think they got a lot of things right, they were just trying too hard to be more intense and more shocking than the original. And they were trying to do it too many times.

      Interestingly, this bit from your post that I quoted can be applied directly to Bioshock 2 without any modification -_-;;

    6. Re:Mother Fluckers. by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 3, Interesting

      CoD 1 with the expansion is still my favorite FPS of all time. The graphics were bad, but online play was very good if you found the right server and/or map. The Barbarossa map was my favorite; it was well balanced, huge, and had plenty of places to hide and engage in actual tactics. It had artillery that could be fired across the map by skilled players, attacking enemy bunkers and making things interesting. It had all the sniper action you could want. What's more, it had tanks, and lots of them. There's nothing like going over a hill to find 5 or 6 German tanks gunning for you. CoD 2 sucked, mostly because of the new health system. It makes no sense for you to just be able to hide and basically regenerate your shields every time you get hurt. That killed any sense of realism for me. Plus, they took away the vehicles they had in CoD 1.

      --
      SSC
    7. Re:Mother Fluckers. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Fuck you, Activision. Fuck you for becomming the new EA.

      The funny thing is that, for all its launch problems (servers being down etc), EA's Battlefield: Bad Company 2 is shaping up to be a much better game than Modern Warfare 2, at least on the multiplayer front.

    8. Re:Mother Fluckers. by Pojut · · Score: 1

      I've noticed that as EA has slowly become less douchy, Activision has become more douchy. Always has to be a rotten apple, I suppose...

    9. Re:Mother Fluckers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have better things to do than support money grubbing assholes. Fuck that.

      Then you'd basically have to stop buying almost any other game as well because I hate to break it to you, but almost all the other game companies are also "money grubbing assholes". Enjoy your selection of 2 games a year.

    10. Re:Mother Fluckers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strange:
      I enjoyed CoD3 more than I do CoD4:MW.

      Maybe it's the way multiplayer was set between the two on the Xbox 360.

      For CoD3, we could connect two or three 360s together, and get up to four heads on a box, so you could just sit there all afternoon, murdering the fuck out of each other in local play.

      For CoD4, you could either put four heads on one box, or one head on each box, which becomes annoying quickly when you've got 10 guys wanting to play, only one map suitable for two-on-two play, and everyone on one screen.

      Needless to say, we would play a game or two of MW, then switched to 3 for much more fun to be had per hour.

      We haven't touched WaW or MW2 as a result of MW's BS.

    11. Re:Mother Fluckers. by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      And it's a great game single-player, too. It's basically what Modern Warfare 2 should have been, I'm happy they made it.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    12. Re:Mother Fluckers. by nacturation · · Score: 1

      And making it to the end of Modern Warfare 2 feels like you only played through Chapter 1 and they ripped the rest out of the game to make the launch date.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  10. Just... wow. by cbope · · Score: 1

    Wow, the quote in the summary is so full of "buy our stock because we will make you tons of money" speak. Based on that one quote alone the company will never have to do real work ever again and the majority stockholders will all be multi-billionaires soon.

    (not that they ever did any real work in the first place)

    1. Re:Just... wow. by krotkruton · · Score: 1

      Not that there isn't a place for business strategy in the video game market, but that quote gave me the chills too. It scares me when the strategy is to overtake markets by creating games to fill those markets instead of making great games that naturally expand into said new markets.

  11. WTF? by Radish03 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    According to Activision, 'The company intends to expand the Call of Duty brand with the same focus seen in its Blizzard Entertainment business unit.'

    What? Blizzard has put out seven titles (four of which are expansions) in the last decade. Activision has put out nine titles in the Guitar/Whatever Hero line in just the last three years (not counting portable titles), and it sounds like they have similar plans for the Call of Duty line. I think what they mean to say is "We think we can turn Call of Duty into a subscription based FPS that prints money for us like World of Warcraft. And if we farm out five more shovelware titles in the same line, they'll sell based on brand recognition alone."

    1. Re:WTF? by Vaphell · · Score: 1

      things don't looks so rosy in case of blizzard
      since wc3 (circa 2003/4) they haven't released anything other than WoW and its expansions. Many people who built the success in the times of sc, d2 and wc3 are gone so it's not the same company it used to be.

      sc2 is around the corner but it's planned as a 3 part experience right off the bat. You can see it as a good thing (more epic story) but there is a non-zero risk they'll follow the path of deliberate watering down and multiplying titles. Nobody knows how D3 will look like but it's not unlikely to see multiple expansions as well.
      Past performance doesn't say anything meaningful about future performance, after all they have new overlords now.

    2. Re:WTF? by omglolbah · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Blizzard is a big enough tail to wag the dog methinks.

      Considering the huge amounts of money they rake in on one title alone...

      And Blizzard has a lot to lose. I am quite a pirate. I never buy a game unless I've tried it. The reason for this is that so many games look spiffy but turn out to suck.

      Not so with blizzard. I buy blizzard games without pirating first as I know they will be excellent. I've bought Starcraft 2-3 times due to losing the cds/keys during apartment moves but I dont mind. Same with Warcraft 3.. Now imagine if their next game sucked. I suspect they would see a lot less loyalty and a whole lot more piracy.

      Though, if anyone can fuck it up, activision... well....fuck...I'll start making a spiffy tombstone :-p

    3. Re:WTF? by lollacopter · · Score: 2, Funny

      I for one look forward to Call of Duty: Beatles edition "love, love me do..... BOOM HEADSHOT !"

    4. Re:WTF? by MaximumFrost · · Score: 1

      Good thing Blizzard is managed separately from Activision, huh? The two companies only share an owner, both are independent from each other (Thank God).

      I know there's a few out there putting hate on Blizzard for the 3 part SC2 thing, but it has been mentioned before that they plan to price them as expansions, not full games. People get uppity over the smallest things...

    5. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bingo.

      COD MMO is on the horizon.

      Also, why do you think Starcraft2 suddenly became 3 games?

    6. Re:WTF? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One of Blizzard's great strengths is its almost-stellar reputation. Most people love Blizzard for being one of the most gamer-friendly companies in the industry. Their merger with Activision (currently striving for the coveted title of most hated distributor) made people wary - their reputations don't match each other at all.

      It remains to be seen whether Blizzard can keep living up to their name.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    7. Re:WTF? by FearForWings · · Score: 1

      I think you have misinterpreted this quote. What they want to do is turn CoD into a pay to play game, where they get monthly fees for multilayer game play like WoW. While I can't find the links now, there was a secretive poll by Activision to judge this possibility and other innuendos like your quote to suggest that this is where they are trying to go.

      --
      I don't know about angles, but it's fear that gives men wings. -Max Payne
    8. Re:WTF? by brkello · · Score: 1

      Because its awesomeness can't be contained in just one game.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
  12. A great lesson by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    This should be a quite instructive case for small developers and individuals who might be tempted to sell out to a major studio, foolishly thinking it will only make their product better and that they won't get screwed in the end.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:A great lesson by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Or not. Without Activision they might just still be a pair of broke, anonymous game devs like they were in the first place. Sure, you would like to have it both ways - use the resources of a big company to produce big-budget AAA titles that rake in tons of cash, but then keep it all for yourself and not owe them anything. But it doesn't work that way.

  13. Why are publishers so brain-dead? by DavidR1991 · · Score: 1

    I never understand it when publishers want to kill the original creators and just flood the market with games under the same brand. Yeah, sure, it'll probably pick up a quick buck in the short term (for people who hang onto the brand). But once the gamers cotton onto the fact that all the new games suck (as they invariably will) they'll stop buying. So it's short term gain (most likely) and long term loss/failure

    Whereas, if they keep the original creators they don't get the short term "insta-cash". But they get continual quality and therefore a more dependable revenue stream. I just don't get the mind set of publishers when they favor the former solution. Are they really that stupid?

    1. Re:Why are publishers so brain-dead? by timeOday · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So by your theory, in what decade did Madden NFL stop making money?

    2. Re:Why are publishers so brain-dead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never understand it when publishers want to kill the original creators and just flood the market with games under the same brand. Yeah, sure, it'll probably pick up a quick buck in the short term (for people who hang onto the brand). But once the gamers cotton onto the fact that all the new games suck (as they invariably will) they'll stop buying. So it's short term gain (most likely) and long term loss/failure

      Whereas, if they keep the original creators they don't get the short term "insta-cash". But they get continual quality and therefore a more dependable revenue stream. I just don't get the mind set of publishers when they favor the former solution. Are they really that stupid?

      If you can make 4 Billion in 3 years by over-exploiting your own franchies versus maybe making 4 Billion or more spread out over 10 years in smaller payouts. Would you go for the long term option?

      There's always going to be an idiot consumer market, the people who buy stuff based soley on brandname alone the trick is keeping them faithfull. If Activision can find new franchises to exploit faster than they can over-exploit them they could be here for a long time. I don't like Bobby Kotick or his ideas on how to run a good publisher, but you have to hand it to him, he is pretty good at what he does.

    3. Re:Why are publishers so brain-dead? by Asclepius99 · · Score: 1

      What I find even more astounding is that gaming companies don't seem to understand that customers don't only think about brands in terms of titles for specific games (Call of Duty, Guitar Hero, etc.) but that we also think about brand in terms of the company that produces it (Acitivision Blizzard, EA, etc.). If they start making a bunch of low quality CoD games, customers will keep that in mind when looking at other Activision franchises. If you can build yourself up as a reputable game studio that always puts a lot of effort into their games then customers are going to be more likely to try new things (not just established franchise sequels) you produce than if you're known for corner-cutting and churning out sequels/spin-offs just for the cash.

    4. Re:Why are publishers so brain-dead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering what it is Kotick actually does, I don't feel obliged to hand him anything.

      Except maybe a primed grenade.

    5. Re:Why are publishers so brain-dead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Madden NFL is a fluke. It's the ONLY yearly game franchise that makes more money every year. It's a huge cash cow that every publisher wants to replicate, but they can't because no other game franchise can possible maintain popularity despite yearly sequels/updates.

      Look at what Activision did to Guitar Hero and is trying to do to Call of Duty.

      Look at what Ubisoft did to Splinter Cell and Rainbow Six.

      For some reason that nobody can exactly define, Madden NFL defies the laws of economics and makes EA massive profits on an annual basis. Activision and Ubisoft have shown they don't care how many of their brands they have to destroy to do it, they just want in on the action.

    6. Re:Why are publishers so brain-dead? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Look at what Activision did to Guitar Hero and is trying to do to Call of Duty.

      What did Activision do wrong with Guitar Hero? Fads come and go, there's nothing Activision could have done to make Guitar Hero stay on top forever. Besides, it's a content-dependent game; you get sick of playing the same few songs over and over, so frequent additional releases are necessary. And since not everybody likes the same music, it also makes perfect sense to release more versions in a given year than any single person could be expected to buy, just as music labels don't expect any single person to buy every album they release. Could they somehow have made a better guitar hero had they concentrated their efforts into a smaller number of titles? I don't see how; the game premise is pretty simple.

    7. Re:Why are publishers so brain-dead? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Considering what it is Kotick actually does, I don't feel obliged to hand him anything.

      Except maybe a primed grenade.

      I wouldn't. I just know a bitch like him is packing "Martyrdom"

  14. Good luck to all those showing Activision the.. by twokay · · Score: 2, Informative

    ..finger.

    I was beginning to think that the IW owners and developers had sold out completely, and if MW2 was any sign of things to come in the COD franchise, it would be hard to argue otherwise.
    But at least this shows that some of them aren't willing to be completely screwed over, and restores some of my faith in the core IW guys.

    --
    Wannabe nerd.
  15. Obligatory Penny Arcade by Moryath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Right Here.

    Developers and franchise holders need to learn not to sign with Activision. Or at the very least, avoid letting their franchise get locked in and their companies bought out.

    Look at the list of franchises Activision has "run into the fucking ground" over the years.

    Tony Hawk and the O2 Sports line? Check. And sadly, two of the best games in that line - Shaun Palmer Pro Snowboarding, Mat Hoffman Pro BMX - weren't skateboarding, and were probably better for not surviving since they existed in the merits of the sport rather than the "yeah skateboarders are a bunch of vandals and criminals and you can be thieves and thugs just like them" crap message of the later games.

    Spider-Man games? Oh good fucking grief. Just when we thought they had learned their lesson, since Spidey 2 for PS2/Xbox was stellar (exception made for the really crappy DS and PSP ports that still used the old Spidey-1 engine), out comes Spidey 3 and it's a completely retarded title with psychotic, seizure-looking "fighting" and "press X to not die" boss battles. Sigh. Then they went and tried to redeem the engine with "Prototype"... good concept, poor execution.

    In fact, their games based on Marvel in general have been crappier and crappier. The "storyline" of Ultimate Alliance 2 was pure turdburger, and the gameplay is just so much recycled crap. We lost a great fighting game franchise when Marvel went "Activision exclusive" and Marvel vs Capcom died, but what did they replace it with? Stinker after stinker of X-men "fighting game" titles, Baldurs-Gate-Lite beat-em-up "RPG" titles, and more stinky steaming turdburger movie tie-in titles than you can think of.

    Their James Bond "let's rip off the CoD engine and try to make a spy game" titles? Oh god. Especially the Quantum of Solace "Well we never finished the Casino Royale game so we'll just stick the levels in this one" crap.

    Guitar Hero? Let's see. Guitar Hero 1-4, "World Tour", 5, Aerosmith, Van Halen, Metallica, "Smash Hits", Band Hero, DJ Hero, "Rocks the 80s", "Greatest Hits", Guitar Hero Mobile, Guitar Hero On Tour, Guitar Hero On Tour Decades, Guitar Hero "Backstage Pass", "Guitar Hero Game Trivia Quiz for iPhone", "Guitar Hero Carabiner" for mobile phones... Can we say franchise fatigue? Yes, I'm pretty sure we can.

    It's no surprise why Harmonix picked up, said "fuck it" to their brand name, and just started over with Rock Band. Plus, Activision's online store for music is crap beyond crap, trying to force you to buy everything as album packs with no previews. With Rock Band, I mostly grab the tracks I want one at a time, unless I find a real reason to buy the "pack" or album set, and I listen to the preview first (got burned once by one of their really crap-ass David Bowie covers, never again will I purchase unlistened... but that was my own damn fault for not previewing). And as much as I hate supporting EA over anyone, in the case of Rock Band vs Guitar Hero, EA is the lesser of two evils by far.

    Enough is enough... Activision needs to either kick Kotick out, preferably skidding on his face rather than just landing on his fat ass, or else die so the good companies they bought up (Blizzard?) can go back out and be independent and innovative once more.

    1. Re:Obligatory Penny Arcade by MBCook · · Score: 4, Informative

      Harmonix didn't pick up and go somewhere else, they were fired.

      There was a quote from one of the high ups in the last month, that explained what happened. They purchased Red Octane and got the license to Guitar Hero. They said "Here's this little developer that makes music games that don't sell, if we give the series to a A-list developer, they'll be able to hit it out of the park."

      So they dropped Harmonix, who pioneered the recent music game, was full of musicians, knew what they were doing, and got not one but TWO games to sell in huge boxes taking up tons of shelf space and costing nearly $100... and replaced it with a studio known for driving properties into the ground.

      Harmonix went and innovated some more. They made a full band. They made a game with soul.

      Activision made Guitar Hero 2, with big budget celebrities and extra notes in the charts to make it harder (thus violating the "playing real music" idea).

      But since Guitar Hero had a name at that point (thanks entirely to Harmonix), GH3 sold really well. This happens (see: other Matrix Movies, Star Wars episodes 1-3, etc.).

      I'm rather amazed that someone finally admitted that canning Harmonix may not have been the best move.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    2. Re:Obligatory Penny Arcade by PitViper401 · · Score: 1

      All true, except Activision started on GH3. GH2 was still Harmonix.

    3. Re:Obligatory Penny Arcade by Hadlock · · Score: 0

      Activision is making a wide variety of (crap) games; you don't have to go out and buy them. The CEO's job is to make lots of profit for the shareholders by any means he can. If you don't like the rules of that "IRL" game, buy independent games, or at least games that aren't distributed by publicly held corporations. Nobody is forcing you to buy Activision's games...

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    4. Re:Obligatory Penny Arcade by MBCook · · Score: 1

      Right. Re-reading my post, I misread it too.

      What I should have written is "Activision made Guitar Hero 3 by cloning Guitar Hero 2 and adding big budget celebrities and extra notes".

      To be fair, Harmonix made some contractually obligated pump-outs (like Rock the 80s), so they weren't immune from it.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    5. Re:Obligatory Penny Arcade by MBCook · · Score: 1

      This is the short-term/long-term thing. Modern Warfare 3 can look nice and it will sell amazingly well, even if it's a horrible game. It's got mindshare. Just look at Guitar Hero 3 (which was just Guitar Hero 2 with new paint) and the Matrix game (which was horrible but had a big property).

      You can even do this for a while. You only spend $10 or $20 million and make $400 million. You burn the fan base people start to hate you, but hey, you made $380 million. The next game costs the same, but sells $180 million. Then $90 million. You ruined your franchise (so you have to develop a new one at great cost) and you made $600 million in 3 years.

      On the other hand, you can spread things out. You can spend $40 or $50 million, and take in $300 million, maybe a little less. But the next game will cost as much and make as much. Same with the third. Now you've got $900 million, and a franchise that sells well, but it took you 5 years.

      So what's better for stockholders? $200 million a year and a franchise that's destroyed, or $180 million a year and a franchise that's got a lot of good will? You may a little more money in the first one, but now you have a ton of risk. And when both companies come out with new games in new series, which do you think people will trust more?

      See: Mario vs. Sonic. One had amazing games come out every few years, the other had terrible games come out every year. One is worthless, one is one of the biggest and best selling properties in the gaming world.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    6. Re:Obligatory Penny Arcade by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Both are good for shareholders. The problem is, like finance/banking executives, their bonuses are based on short term gains. When it comes to the annual review in front of the board, being able to say
       
      "Well I shipped a $200 million product this year with a cost of only $20 million with basically zero risk, versus Bob here, who is gambling $60 million of shareholder profit on developing a new franchise "Soldiers who Shoot Stuff", and shipped nothing. We'll be lucky if we break even on Bob's little "project" here. Keep in mind when you're handing out bonuses, my product made up 40% of the gross profits for the year. Based on sales analysis we project our profit margin on next year's sequel to be X and the spinoffs for the franchise to be Y, not counting mechandise and DLC"
       

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
  16. Call of Money: Activision Lawfare. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems to be a rather fitting title for me for the sequel.

    Splut.

  17. Ha-lo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How has no one mentioned the Halo line?

    Halo 1, 2, 3, ODST, Wars, and now Reach. All which seem to have been quite successful despite the overuse of the series.

  18. Are bankers really so brain-dead? by twokay · · Score: 1

    I think we all know the answer to that.

    Its all about maximum profit in the shortest amount of time. If you can make 500 million running a game into the ground the publisher doest care, they made 500 million pumping out a generic video game by riding on the success and innovation of someone else. Its pure profit. Sure you need something new to run into the ground after 3-5 years, but by that time all the execs got their bonuses and everyone* is happy.

    *everyone making money

    --
    Wannabe nerd.
  19. Asking a question about servers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As anonymous coward, with a score of 0.

    Could Activision be forced to take down the servers due to legal action (Not paying the developers)? If so, what happens to CoD:MW2?

  20. Read an interview with him recently by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He seemed to remember fondly how Activision was pulled from near bankruptcy by a guy that had a habit of selling IP that they didn't own.

  21. As a scorned PC gamer... by dr_wheel · · Score: 1

    ... allow me to say, good for them. They really put the screws to the PC community with Modern Warfare 2.

    Infinity Ward sold their souls a long time ago. Zampella and West, I hope Bobby Kotick rapes your franchise for the next decade or two. Karma is a bitch, boys.

    1. Re:As a scorned PC gamer... by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      Considering the behavior we see now from Activision, it's not unreasonable to hypothesize that the crippling of the PC version was driven by Activision, not IW. We'll never know for sure, though, as it's "he said" versus "she said".

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
  22. New idea for a Game!!!!! by neptunusmaris · · Score: 1

    Bear with me... A pr0n (or norpo) game called: Call of Booty: Modern Whorefare YES

    1. Re:New idea for a Game!!!!! by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      No, next they'll release "Call of Ditto: Modern Warfare 2 2". Yes, with two twos. They'll just re-release MW2 with different textures until people notice. Then they'll start re-releasing MW1.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  23. Teabag games by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Activision is what I tend to call teabag games. That is, take the idea for a game being to a game like a teabag for a cup of tea. You take a fresh one out of the box, you brew your tea, and it will be good. Likewise, you take a fresh idea out of your head and turn it into a game, it will be good.

    Thinking that the same bag of tea leaves will give you another good cup of tea, since it did it once before, is maybe an idea that springs to your mind, but it is about as wrong as it could be.

    Like teabags make one good cup of tea, game ideas make one good game. You can of course use the same blend that gave you a great cup of tea, but you have to break open another bag of tea and use this. Not the one you already used. That one is spent and its flavour was poured into your first cup of tea. Likewise, the same general formula will allow you to make another good game, but you still have to invest into another bag of tea.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  24. I hope they win by CherniyVolk · · Score: 1

    First, the new CoD MW2 is nice. But there are some major issues with this game regarding multiplayer.

    First, bring back dedicated servers. If I decide to join a server hosted in Bahrain, from San Diego, yeah... lag. Nothing is worse than blatant interruption of game play, I'd rather play throw lag than be interrupted for long periods of time waiting for host migration, connecting to new host, waiting for other players... 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.... just because someone decided to leave. The time wasted waiting to continue far exceeds even the time loss dealing with noticable lag from a dedicated server. Not to mention the heavy negative of being outright interrupted.

    They have destroyed the community values of FPS games with this new system. With Unreal Tournament, there were a handful of servers I went to, constantly. Handles became familiar, even considering regulars as friends. Clans used to be stronger, more prevalent... a bit harder to do in CoD MW2. I can't help to notice a dramatic reduction in Clan Tags in CoD MW2, but this only reflects the total destruction of social aspect of the game as no social congregations can be made reliably and every round is full of strangers you haven't seen before, and may never see again. Yes, I know about friends list, I know you can try to jimmy the distribution and I have seen clan tags in CoD... just no where near as much.

    Also, where are the custom maps? What was ridiculously boring about other CoDs was the lack of wide use of custom maps. Unreal Tournament, full of custom maps, anyone remember the giant maps... of like an office... chair was 100 feet tall? Man, those were the best.

    Anyways, I couldn't care less for CoD MW2. If they die and never release another game I figure that's a good thing.

    They need to bring back dedicated servers, what they are doing now sucks ass. There's no social glue with the game, so when I finally get bored of the maps why play anymore? On the other hand, Unreal Tournament some servers only had one map, but I continued to play because friends and familiar people played on that server too; some where considered 'home' for friendly clans... etc etc. Here, it's just pure insanity and stupidity, why play?

    Some people like this new crap network arch they have going on. I think they haven't really thought about it thoroughly, maybe they are stupid, maybe they can't think further ahead than five minutes, maybe they are just dumb.

    1. Re:I hope they win by dtml-try+MyNick · · Score: 1

      Also, where are the custom maps? What was ridiculously boring about other CoDs was the lack of wide use of custom maps. Unreal Tournament, full of custom maps, anyone remember the giant maps... of like an office... chair was 100 feet tall? Man, those were the best

      Oh yeah, I remember those.. specificaly the office map because I hated it ;)

      But the lack of custom maps in games these days can't really be blamed on the developer.
      Up to UT2004 and CoD III(?) it was relatively easy for anyone with slightly above average knowledge about the game and 3d design to make a decent custom map in a reasonable amount of time.

      If you look at the latest UT and CoD however.. map making isn't for the amateur/hobby type of modder anymore. It became far to complex for your average amateur mapmaker to just sit down and whip up something for fun. You need a huge ammount of time and knowledge/experience to come up with something that is slightly on par with the game.

      The demand for realism, more pixels and more advanced ai killed the custom maps and mods, not the developer but the gamer himself.

      --
      Life starts at the end of your comfort zone.
  25. I can't wait for... by nilbog · · Score: 1

    I can't wait for Call Of Duty Metallica Edition World Tour.

    --
    or else!
  26. Here's an idea... by nilbog · · Score: 2, Funny

    Here's an idea: let's create a game that trains legions of nothing-to-lose nerds how to proficiently use an arsenal of modern weaponry. Then let's do stuff to really piss them off.

    --
    or else!