News Activision: Exploitation has worked well for us

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/11/07/activision-exploitation-has-worked-well-for-us/1

Activision isn't ashamed that it has been exploiting successful franchises. Not at all. According to CEO Bobby Kotick, it's a good strategy.

 

Ug, no thanks.

 

Wait a minute, I thought they said Ghostbusters wasn't being dropped?

 

Greetings!

So, Activision goes the clone way and EA goes the DRM way.
Nice...

 

Ghostbusters has been purchased by Atari

 

If they could create new game series like Quake, Call Of Duty or whatever - why not?

However, I hate sequels which are kind of "...strikes back...again!". It's only ruining story.

 

Fair play for being honest about it.

 

Suppose "less is more" could apply here, but the question is less of what and more for who?

If it means they will focus on releasing less, but higher quality, games, including new IP, then everyone benefits - which quite frankly doesn't seem to be the case here.

If it turns out this ideology only leads to "more of the same" games of varying quality and a more sequel oriented design where their games end with "to be continued..." I have to wonder how they plan to keep their business running.

That's underestimating gamers if anything is. Or it might just be that I'm overestimating them

I for one will think twice before buying anything from them if it does turn out as it seems.

 

Thank god for that, I thought I was losing it (my mind, not the game that is ).

 

Mental note, no need to buy another Activision game ever or until that moron is gone.

 

BS, if you want to make the Sequel a quality Game it will cost just as much to develop as something new and if you dont invest enough in the sequel you will just end up with a debacle, see ea and nfs for a example.

 

Activision has just lost it's previous reputation in my eyes. I guess I'm going to be sticking only to Valve from now on.

 

well, now I have yet another reason to avoid call of duty 5, not only is it a clone of COD4, it offers very little new stuff and would only support these idiots.

 

I think he's just saying they want to focus on fewer franchises, not that sequels will cost less to make.

 

I don't particularly mind the CoD sequels, I'd just prefer they continue to be made by Infinity Ward instead of the other crap studios Activision keeps farming them out to. If you ignore the "Call of Duty __" on the front of the box and think of them as standalone games then it's not so bad, but Activision needs to realize that there's only so far you can push a particular game; Guitar Hero has just about reached the same critical mass that Dance Dance Revolution did before it, and they're in serious danger of over-saturating the market. I love GH as much as the next guy, but I start to feel insulted when they just assume that we'll go out every year and buy the new one just for the new songs (like EA does with Madden and co.). Ironically, they'd probably make more if they just stuck to DLC for new songs; just release a bundle every month or so and let the cash flow right in.

 

I agree, over saturating the market with games that are all to similar is going to be a big mistake for Activision. The is especially the case with Guitar Hero as the new ones do not offer anything new (besides more songs and titles). Call of Duty hasn't yet fallen into this yet, but it sure could go that way. Especially since Activision seems to be keen on lending its star IP out to other developers. Do we really need more of the same?

 

Click here for source.

 

win

 

So everyone's up in arms about Activision exploiting endless franchises, yet hardly anybody quipped at nVidia exploiting a fundamentally competition-free market not long ago. What, did all the gamers in the whole industry decide to self-inform this very moment?