Robert "Bobby" Kotick is the Devil

[MrFunctionality]

It's all about the CHEDDAR baby!!

(sorry for the rant - but I was exiled from the Cod:BO thread)

@Macnme - Congrats on once again bringing Black Ops into discussion, I woudn't be too shocked to see you exiled from your own thread, really...... get over it, I for one don't want to see another "Star wars battlefront" or "prototype 2", I'm not gonna start a thread about it and yes, it was very much a Rant.

[Macnme]

First up - Thanks RTM for actually keeping this thread as a discussion, when others would rather it turned into a fight.

As I said at the start of this thread - it's for a general discussion regarding the state of the games industry. - Maybe the title was a bit leading, but I don't think "Measured Discussion Regarding the Game Industry" would have gotten many replies.

Personally I don't see where I'm contradicting myself - but won't bite your head off for pointing it out.
I buy independant titles & big budget titles, being a committed life time gamer - but my buying habits alone are not going to affect the industry at large.

I guess the argument boils down to the time honoured "Big Corperation vs Mom & Pop Organisation";
Big Corperations will win that battle every time... and not always by fair means (in fact, rarely by fair means).

The reason I post this here, is because for me - Little Big Planet is the antithesis of Activisions model. Created as it was by a small team of talented developers, who had a desire to make a great game that 'they' wanted to play... rather than what was the most popular game genre in the market and needed to be released during the "prime gifting period". That would be the worst motivation for making a game. And in doing so, Media Molecule managed to create their own new genre - which has done them no end of good. They could have made another generic FPS - and in all likelyhood would have failed because they can't compete with the marketing prowess of Activision.

Mark Healey's "Beta Picks" email highlights it perfectly - going right back to his origins with computing and gaming, and how he himself complained regarding the inability to create software himself for the consoles - in the end having to make the game he wanted to see himself.

Me & my Bro have been planning our "perfect game" for a good 10 years now... Code Named: Ambition - as it would be the most ambitious game ever made - and we both have the ambition to some day see it made.. we've discussed it so much we already have a wealth of rules and game aspects planned out - & if I was in the position to (say a lottery win) - then yes, I would fund it - even if it meant losing all of my money.

Big Business is bad for creativity - Activision would never have made Little Big Planet. This, for me, proves that Bobby Kotick is a force for evil in the world. & try and tell me that the original creators of Call of Duty don't think that Kotick is evil
(I probably should have posted a picture here of Bobby Kotick as the devil {I think there are more photo's of him as satan than actual normal photo's of him} - but I've already made my point)

[Alex™]

And for every LittleBigPlanet, ie For every successful game that is unique and original, there will be hundreds of failed ones, that ruin the company making it. LBP had Sony's support, and not every game will get that just because it's unique. LBP is the exception, rather than the norm. And there is good reason for that.

And that reason is, as i said, money. It's a business, and they have to aim to make profits. A unique game that satisfies a few won't make up for the fact that they lose all their money.

[Macnme]

And that reason is, as i said, money.

& Money is the root of all evil.

ergo;
Bobby Kotick is the Devil.
QED

[rtm223]

Big Business is bad for creativity

Yet your alternative viewpoint is LBP - Owned and funded by Sony. Without big business, that game would never have been made. Why do you think Media Molecule didn't make most of the DLC for LBP - because Sony outsourced that to various other studios so that LBP2 could be developed with a view to releasing in time for the "prime gifting period" of 2010 (they missed of course, but that's beside the point).


As Alex says, LBP is the exception, in that it is an innovative title that managed to convince the big businesses that it was worth pumping ridiculous amounts of money into, because they believed it would turn them a profit. Using a single example like that (and of course, a scattering of examples across the years) that indicates that yes, innovative, quirky masterpieces can pull big audiences and can turn profits doesn't take away the simple realities of the industry, it's audience and ultimately, the world.


And as we're still hammering at a single company, and even a single individual, answer me this: Why should Activision be expected to create these innovative titles? The truth is, with so many gamers out there playing and enjoying their products (some of which truly are fantastically well-made games, let's be honest), what reason is there for them (and I mean specifically them) to be creating any specific games that they aren't already making. It's certainly not in their interest to do so and as gamers, we have no need for such things - other companies are making innovative titles, I don't believe that in a market as varied as this one all developers should be trying to be all things to all men. Media Molecule, who you are placing as your antitheses of Activision, the White Knight in this debate, make a single game, which certainly doesn't appeal to everyone.... So where is the justification there? Surely nothing more than personal preference? In essence "companies shouldn't make games that don't appeal to me, if they do then they are evil". Really?

[Macnme]

Well, thanks for paraphrasing me so innacurately - putting sentances and sentiments in my mouth that I did not utter.

I could paraphrase you just as unfairly - but I won't.
See this ^ - this is me rising above it

Why should Activision be expected to create these innovative titles?

Because they bought up the companies who's titles they were, only to drop any titles that couldn't be turned into an annuallised yearly cash cow.

Other companies are not making the titles I would like to see... hence why I'm having to plan my own game in order to satisfy my itch.

Surely you can see that it's a sad state of affairs that the only way I'm going to get to play the game that I actually want to play, is to actually make it myself?
And by the time I'm at the other end of the development process, I'm sure I'd be sick of the sight of it.


Activision use the Microsoft model of business (hey, it worked for M$, they're good at making money but doesn't stop people from thinking they're evil - see the multitude of court cases brought against them) - in that they never come up with their own ideas - they steal other peoples popular ideas, and then market it better.
Unless of course, they can't turn it into the annual cash cow - in which case it's dropped.


I have a feeling that future generations are going to look back on this "Age of Plastic" and be shocked to learn that we only thought something was worthwhile doing if it could turn a tidy profit.


How many billions a year profit do they really need before they feel safe enough to start taking risks on innovative titles?
They won't, they'll let the smaller companies take the risks - and if it's a success, then steal their idea, or assimilate them like the Borg. If that's not evil, I don;t know what is.


& People can buy any game they want - Activision can make any game they want;
You are as free to buy it and enjoy it as I am to critisise and deride it.

But why does LBP have to be the exception - and Activision the rule?
Don't bother - I know the answer - It's the same reason the Cinemas are full of crud, and the music charts are full of nursery rhymes.... "The general public";

... **** general public - scumming the place up as usual

[Alex™]

& Money is the root of all evil.

ergo;
Bobby Kotick is the Devil.
QED

Money is necessary for survival. And in Kotick's position, I'd do the same. I'd happily take the money he's getting without complaining. Especially when so many people do enjoy the CoD games. I wouldn't change it just because a few guys on a few forum have decided that CoD isn't good enough for them.