| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (85)

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 5:06PM Hank Hill said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
That boy ain't right.

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 5:44PM superklye said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Reply

Posted: Nov 13th 2010 6:56PM Red O Magnus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@superklye

THAT was an awesome post...
Reply

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 5:06PM Gibbeynator said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
So, how long before Kotick cans everyone from Treyarch, and keep all the money for himself?

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 5:58PM Cap Morgan said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Gibbeynator
I am amazed how Kotick can go from zero to douche in one quote.
"You know, Call of Duty games probably represent more than 50% of the total Xbox Live traffic,"

Yes Bobby, inspite of you it does well.
Reply

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 6:38PM Killimus2188 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Cap Morgan

Why does that make him a douche? It's just a fact (a not very surprising one at that). Pretty much everyone I know that has an Xbox and Live has played/owns MW2 and my roomies would play it non-stop for weeks during launch.

Despite your distaste for CoD, it IS the most played game on Live.
Reply

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 5:08PM Milf Biggenson said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Kotick is correct about the price of games not being that expensive. I paid $50 for Superman on Atari in 1978. I paid $100 for Phantasy Star 2 for the Genesis and most other games were $50 or more. I can definitely sense that a pay for play model from Activision is coming.....

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 5:21PM 12mholmes said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Milf Biggenson
I agree with you on the price issue. $60 for a really good game is definitely worth it, ex CoD:BO, Fallout:NV ect. However, I hope a pay to play model doesn't come from Activision. There are very few games that I'd be willing pay monthly or yearly, it just seems like things like that can add up.
Reply

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 5:54PM kentuckyfried said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@12mholmes

I'm guessing that Activision plans for some type of persistent MMO type COD that can constantly generate revenue per month without completely alienating a big chunk of the fan base.
Reply

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 6:21PM smoothy said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Milf Biggenson

I paid $40.00 for new PS1 titles, ten years ago. Five years ago, I paid $50.00 for new AAA titles on PS2. Now it's up to $60.00. But WAIT, that's not all. For some games, the price climbs well over $100.00 because of all the "we're going to cut this out of the game to rip everyone off" DLC.

Gaming is going up and up and up. Subscriptions are the next "screw you" move. If this keeps up, expect another crash.
Reply

Posted: Nov 13th 2010 4:41AM Maxwell said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@smoothy
Assuming 5% inflation, a game that cost $40 ten years ago should cost $65 today, and one that was $50 should be $63.

Considering the increased costs of making the games, it seems to me like we are getting a pretty good deal.
Reply

Posted: Nov 13th 2010 1:59PM Milf Biggenson said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@smoothy You're not factoring inflation into the equation. You're making the mistake thinking that the $40 you paid 15 years ago for PS1 games equates to the $40 it does now, or the $50 I paid in 1978. It doesn't. Gaming isn't going up. - inflation says it's coming down. Yes it's going up if you count DLC - but only the "DLC" that was cut out of the final game or the DLC that was already on the disk. Undead Redemption, Fallout 3 DLC, GTAIV are examples of DLC that's worth the extra cost.
Reply

Posted: Nov 13th 2010 2:09PM Gourd British said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@smoothy Gaming prices have stayed pretty steady up through today - despite you buying a few PS1 and PS2 games at reasonable rates - prices have routinely stayed in the 50-60 dollar range (from the Atari 2600 to the Sega Genesis days. But thanks anyway for the history on Sony pricing)

And a subscription method isn't the ultimate "screw you". For games that require near constant monitoring, tweaks and fixes, such as MMO, RTS or FPS genres, these communities have gotten so large they require the subscription money (or DLC-money) to maintain them.

If you don't like it, I know a guy who can get you some good deals on some PS1 and PS2 games (hint: it's you!)
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2010 1:31PM Hellequin said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Maxwell

Well... and what about companies that sell NEW games for 50 or 40? MW2 cost 59,99 since launch... inflation? Huh... i guess not...

I'll not pay $60 in a shooter, not matter how many years passed. It'll never worth that...
Reply

Posted: Nov 14th 2010 3:18PM mcnichoj said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@smoothy
Weren't N64 games $60 back in the day and new consoles were roughly $600 too?
Reply

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 5:10PM Starcade said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Here's a thought.... release more MW2 DLC. Something that doesn't mine old maps in the process.

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 5:11PM Faithless said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Why can't all developers use the same model as rockstar? Undead Nightmare was 800 points and was sooo worth it. £12 for five maps (three new ones) I don't think so.

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 5:12PM Revengez said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Treyarch's logo gives me a headache. Trying to figure out where it starts and ends, and then watch it loop 3 times... Idk.

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 8:59PM pandaSmore said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Revengez

That's their old logo. I quite like their new logo.
Reply

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 5:12PM jynxycat said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
EA partially looks like the asshole now with their $10 online codes for used games.

If even Activision won't go that route, you know you strayed off the path.

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 5:13PM GamingColt said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I love COD. I hate that I love it so much. But I love it.

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 5:16PM MystileArmor said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I'd like to hear Kotick on what he thinks has happened with Tony Hawk or Guitar Hero. I'm being sincere. The quality, sales and appeal of those games have gone down the drain fairly fast, imo. Guitar Hero more then Tony Hawk, I admit, but still.

I enjoyed the interview, Chris. Thank you.

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 5:24PM Mouthsmasher said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@MystileArmor; That's a great point.These interviews only seem to revolve around CoD, and nothing else.

I'd like to hear him discuss Activisions "milking process."
Reply

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 5:29PM MystileArmor said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@MystileArmor

I believe it's what you could consider "milking" however, Bobby Kotick might see it as something else.

I'd be interested to hear his side of the argument. That's pretty much it.
Reply

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 5:34PM That Burning Sensation said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@MystileArmor

He know's what milking his, and he knows he is doing it. That's like saying a serial killer doesn't really kill because he sees it as "having fun stabby time with friends he never met". Bobby Kodick realizes what he is doing and it is that fact which makes him a sociopathic prick.
Reply

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 6:47PM Mazrael said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@MystileArmor
Well Activision seem to think Fisher Hero is the best in it's genre http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-11-12-bungies-activision-universe-set-for-pc
I for one disagree
Reply

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 5:21PM That Burning Sensation said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I'm sorry, I really don't think this guy deserves a podium, especially here on Joystiq. Wasn't this guy just quoted saying he wanted to "capitolize" on consumers and charge for cut-scenes? Any attempt on his part to "expain himself" is nothing more than lies. Please Joystiq, stop giving this guy any more of your time.

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 5:36PM MystileArmor said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@That Burning Sensation

I disagree. I think even unpopular people deserve a podium. Especially on a video game blog. For all you know he could say something very heartfelt and insightful. I haven't read it yet, but it could happen, I suppose.
Reply

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 5:38PM MystileArmor said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@MystileArmor

I meant: "In this case especially, since it's video game blog"
Reply

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 5:47PM That Burning Sensation said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@MystileArmor

Gamers need a voice. To me that is what a site like Joystiq can provide. Kodick has billions of dollars at his disposal, let him make his own game blog.
Reply

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 7:00PM Vordus said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@That Burning Sensation He focus-tested badly, and Activision is worried that his unpopularity amongst the core might affect their sales; so they're trying to humanise him and make him seem like a games maker rather than a pure capitalist.
It's a good idea, but like many of Activision's good ideas, there's one massive flaw; Bobby Kotick is Bobby Kotick.
Reply

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 5:22PM Mouthsmasher said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'll jump on the CoD bandwagon when/if 343industries drops the ball on my Halo games.

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 5:26PM Mcmax3000 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I'm not going to bash Call of Duty because, while I'm kind of tired of the series, the games are pretty high quality.

That said, the last thing I'd call the series at this point is "a great road map for innovation".

I haven't seen anything really innovative in the series since Call of Duty 4.

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 6:45PM Mr Numeros said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Mcmax3000
Off the top of my head (not having played MW2, W@W, or BLOPS):
Nazi Zombies
Death Streaks
Spec Ops

You may argue with the first two, but spec ops was very well received.
Reply

Posted: Nov 13th 2010 10:19AM 8bitartist said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Mr Numeros

well received doesnt make it innovative.
Reply

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 5:28PM Jack Kevorkian said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I get that COD is very successful, but is anyone besides me REALLY looking forward to launch week being over?

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 5:46PM XperimntNterror said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Jack Kevorkian count me in, doc
Reply

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 8:11PM Nap said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@XperimntNterror I used to be interested in what my friends were doing before starting my game. I don't even check anymore; I know my entire friends list is playing Black Ops -_-
Reply

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 5:29PM Jack Kevorkian said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@ben linus I almost made a real response.

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 5:31PM That Burning Sensation said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
"Retailers are cutting the game companies out of that second-hand sale"

WTF really?! So everyone who sells a used Civic owes Honda money? Every time I sell a movie I bought with MY money I owe Hollywood a share? How about my shirt I give to Goodwill? I am so sick of this. As much as I hate Gamestop, retailers or individuals don't owe a damn thing to Activision for selling merchandise bought by them.

Don't give me this "It's a business, and they need to make money" garbage. You can still make money hand over fist without nickel and diming every god damn thing. When did being a buisness excuse you from having ethics, morals, social obligations, feelings, humanity? Just because it's a buisness does mean anything, because the PEOPLE run them.

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 5:46PM Acosta02 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@That Burning Sensation

Did you read like the next sentence? Activision doesn't try to stop it.
Reply

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 5:56PM Crayola Q Pants ESQ said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@That Burning Sensation

It doesn't excuse people from having ethics, morals, social obligations, feelings, and humanity, but in big business it does mean that for 50+ hours a week those things are very likely not a person's priority if they want to remain the person in charge.

That said, I have no answer for the used game-used car analogy, because it's a very good point. And then it gets even hairer, because whenever piracy comes up, taking money away from developers remains one of the key arguments of it(moreso than the cut-and-dry "it's illegal" stand), which by that logic should also mean that people should also be against buying used games.
Reply

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 7:33PM Zippon said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@That Burning Sensation
You can't compare used car and shirt(?!?) sales to used game sales. Depreciation and wear-and-tear are major factors affecting the ease of sale and final value of those items. Not so with games.
Selling a used movie comes closer, since it is digital and is nearly identical to a new item (much like a used game), but it still falls short. One, because a movie generates revenue in the theaters THEN in DVD sales. So used sales only impact one of two revenue streams. And two, because the volume is negligible compared to game sales. Used movies are a blip. Whereas used games were the tentpole for Gamestop's 9 BILLION(!) in sales last year.
As much as gamers like to complain about it, fact of the matter is that developers have a point. Used game sales cost them revenue on a very large scale. (Again, look at the 9 BILLION Gamestop made, basically for being a clearing house for used games.)
Reply

Posted: Nov 13th 2010 6:25AM Premature ejaculation man said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@That Burning Sensation
Cars and games have a very different position though. I've always hated car analogies too, but I'll save that rant.

Reselling cars is different since the car would likely be an old model, does not run as efficiently and may have other forms of damage like scratches.

Games on the other hand can only suffer from scratches to deteriorate the original experience (it's the user's fault for accepting a scratched disc but that's beside the point), otherwise, the experience is the same even 20 years later. The thing is, Gamestop is intentionally trying to cut out first hand sales for publishers, so they only stock "enough" and generate revenue from second hand sales and encourage trade ins. This is rather malicious, but its clearly working for them.

The problem though is that it kills the actual second hand market, like eBay and lending to friends with publishers trying to squash second hand value which is a disgusting response.

I have a problem with GameStop's business model, but I hate the fact that publishers want to squish it and remove our ability to resell to other people since they have to then make two transactions one for the game and then one for EA PLUS - or whatever it is - to get the full experience. Then there's DLC and getting a "full" experience which is a whole other argument
Reply

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 5:37PM Johnnynumber5 is powered by cell said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"We actually don't think its in the best interest of the gamer, and so we've chosen not to."

Does he really think we're all that naive?

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 5:41PM Gaming 4 Jesus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Create all the DLC you want, so long as you don't skimp on the content contained within the full retail release.

I for one don't buy any DLC, not because of some moral imperative, but simply because I look forward to moving on to new games once I've completed 100% the current game I'm playing.

There's just too many good games to invest in one game for more than, say, two weeks (or 100 hours).

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 6:53PM Mazrael said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Gaming 4 Jesus
I usually skip the multiplayer, far too repetitive..
Reply

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 5:51PM Hawaii Jeff said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
i think it's really disingenuous for a gaming blog to allow Kotick to spew his PR spin without challenging his assertions.

a gaming blog should not give him air time, since he is not FOR gamers, he is just FOR his shareholders (and baldly states this in the "interview").


did you even ask him if he PLAYS games? i doubt he does.

someone who does not even play games cannot possibly know what "gamers want."

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 6:12PM Jack Kevorkian said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Hawaii Jeff To be fair, he can simply hire those types. The guy is a businessman and a promoter...not a gamer. I don't think he has ever said otherwise.
Reply

Posted: Nov 12th 2010 6:22PM Jonman said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
@Hawaii Jeff

I couldn't disagree with you more. This is an *interview* of Kotick. The point of an interview is to get the interviewee to talk at length, so you can get inside their head.

Like it or not, Kotick is, and has been for a decade and a half, a mover-and-shaker in the videogame world. The question I'd ask is why hasn't this kind of interview happened sooner and more often? It's fascinating, and far more interesting that the usual round of cheap photoshops of devil horns onto his head.

As to whether or not he plays games, I'm not sure that's even relevant. Kotick has a long and proven track record of being able to successfully run a huge publisher. Regardless of whether *you* think Activision are a good company or not, their financial success speaks volumes. Kotick is unarguably good at his job, and his job doesn't require him to play games.
Reply

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW