[QUOTE=rinoaff33;34748143]Unfortunately, a typical business doesn't care about the consumer, they only care about the profit, and appear to care for the consumer because it brings in profit. Activision doesn't even try to put up a facade, they just rake in the cash of the same crowd who buy sports games, phones, and cameras every year.[/QUOTE]
That's such a fucking lie, every successful business is only successful because they care about the consumer. If they don't care about the consumer, no one will buy from them and they can't get sales. Activision cares about the consumer, Activision listens to the consumer, why do you think that they are so successful? If Activision genuinely didn't care for their consumers, everyone would have moved on from Call of Duty ages ago, or Activision may had even cancelled Call of Duty yet loads of people want it, and record breaking sales prove that.
Stop with the mentality that businesses don't care about consumers, and don't use the word "typical" as a label for the busineses that don't care for the consumer and end up failing. Oh yeah going by your logic would Valve not care for the consumer because they sell digital cosmetics for $10 on the Mann Co store in an effort to rake in cash from the TF2 community, and Valve only puts on a guise of caring for the consumer so they can get those sales?
[QUOTE=1STrandomman;34748107]Minecraft and Skyrim don't help your point. You're also falling for the same trap that industry people do, looking purely at sales numbers. The only difference is that they don't see "Skyrim did well" they see "MW3 sold better" and we get more brown military shooters. It's not even the market saturation I have a problem with, it's that Devs are encouraged to give up on their original ideas in order to appeal to a more profitable demographic. See Crysis 2.[/QUOTE]
Then blame the developers of Crysis. It's not Activisions fault they took a fairly unique multiplayer and filtered it down into CoD with a nanosuit.
"Poor bad developers, it's not their fault they can't make a unique and compelling game on their own. It's all Activisions fault for releasing an entirely seperate, successful series!"
Give me a break.
[QUOTE]
And don't tell me there's nothing unethical about extorting your fans. Putting out a full priced sequel with minimal content, overpriced DLC, AND this new subscription service? Do you want this stuff to catch on?[/QUOTE]
I don't want it to catch on, but I'm not going to blame Activision for capitalizing on success. The free market decides what is and isn't successful. If the games weren't fun to play they wouldn't be successful. If people didn't see those DLC map packs and subscription services worth spending money on, no one would buy them. That's how it works.
[editline]17th February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Antdawg;34749861]That's such a fucking lie, every successful business is only successful because they care about the consumer. If they don't care about the consumer, no one will buy from them and they can't get sales. Activision cares about the consumer, Activision listens to the consumer, why do you think that they are so successful? If Activision genuinely didn't care for their consumers, everyone would have moved on from Call of Duty ages ago, or Activision may had even cancelled Call of Duty yet loads of people want it, and record breaking sales prove that.[/QUOTE]
Not just record breaking sales, but a HUGE increase in new playerbase with every release. The population from CoD4 exploded and has kept growing with every release.
[QUOTE]Not just record breaking sales, but a HUGE increase in new playerbase with every release. The population from CoD4 exploded and has kept growing with every release.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps because they spend more on advertising the game than the developers spend on making the game?
[url]http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/18/business/fi-ct-duty18[/url]
If video game development is going the way of Hollywood then I want no part of it.
[QUOTE=rinoaff33;34749982]Perhaps because they spend more on advertising the game than the developers spend on making the game?
[url]http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/18/business/fi-ct-duty18[/url]
If video game development is going the way of Hollywood then I want no part of it.[/QUOTE]
If you are going to quote an article, can you read it before tearing quotes out of context?
[QUOTE]Including marketing expenses and the cost of producing and distributing discs, the launch budget was $200 million[/QUOTE]
It's also incredibly vague as to what exactly the budget entails besides those two mentions.
I love how Sanius completely avoided my post.
Great job.
[QUOTE=Kero_;34745125]May I please have some information about why this is bad news?[/QUOTE]
Kotick's the one who's ruined the AAA video game industry. He's somehow managed to figure out a way to repaint CoD 4 over and over and charge a total of ~$120 for a working copy ($60 base "game" + shitload of DLCs that quite frankly should have been included in the base game for $5) and get people to fall in love with it so much that a man shot someone else walking out of the store just so he could take the copy. And since most AAA companies (EA, Ubisoft maybe) copy off of CoD, it's only a matter of time before they try the same shit.
Most people in this thread fail to realize that you can't try that with a soda company without bankrupting it. Kotick realizes this so he's not going to.
Kotick isn't the CEO, way to skew it OP
He just got placed on the board of directors
[QUOTE=lavacano;34750672]He's somehow managed to figure out a way[/QUOTE]
1) Not he. The developers. CEO's don't micromanage enough to justify his involvement in the series. The most he probably does is plan out release schedules and marketing strategies.
2) The "way" is making a product that people enjoy. It's not some magical formula, it's not marketing, it's not some complex conspiracy about paying off people in dark backrooms. They make something that people enjoy.
This isn't hard folks. People buy CoD because they like it.
All coke products will now be in indestructible containers. The only way to open them is to buy a $15 dollar can/bottle opener for a 1-time use. You have to do it for each one you want to drink.
[editline]18th February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;34751495]This isn't hard folks. People buy CoD because they like it.[/QUOTE]
I agree completely. But people hate Bobby Kotick for good reasons, you know.
1. Making developers think it's okay to charge 60 dollars for a game.
2. Planning to charge users for cutscenes.
[QUOTE=mixshifter;34752010]All coke products will now be in indestructible containers. The only way to open them is to buy a $15 dollar can/bottle opener for a 1-time use. You have to do it for each one you want to drink.
[editline]18th February 2012[/editline]
I agree completely. But people hate Bobby Kotick for good reasons, you know.
1. Making developers think it's okay to charge 60 dollars for a game.
2. Planning to charge users for cutscenes.[/QUOTE]
Oh I don't disagree. Kotick is a complete tool and has done nothing but damage Activisions public relations. He says the worst things about the industry. The world would be a better place if we just never heard him say anything again.
I was just referring to the argument about CoD. Why are we talking about video games in a thread about Bobby Kotick and Coca Cola? Because Facepunch can't help itself that's why.
And this is why Pepsi is always a step ahead.
[QUOTE=Upgrade123;34752751]And this is why Pepsi is always a step ahead.[/QUOTE]
Wait you mean there's people like you actually taking this news seriously ?
I thought people were just joking around. You realize Kotick is a very good businessman when it comes to making money, right ? His only problem is that he decided to consider the video game industry a business like any other which led to the awful decisions we today know. Other than that, the guy is not the devil and will not run the company to the ground for a reason or another.
Plus, you guys should realize there are SEVERAL CEOs of Coca Cola, not a single big man who chooses everything for everyone else.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34750736]Kotick isn't the CEO, way to skew it OP
He just got placed on the board of directors[/QUOTE]
It has been said a few times, your point?
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;34752995]Wait you mean there's people like you actually taking this news seriously ?
I thought people were just joking around. You realize Kotick is a very good businessman when it comes to making money, right ? His only problem is that he decided to consider the video game industry a business like any other which led to the awful decisions we today know. Other than that, the guy is not the devil and will not run the company to the ground for a reason or another.
Plus, you guys should realize there are SEVERAL CEOs of Coca Cola, not a single big man who chooses everything for everyone else.[/QUOTE]
Since when does facepunch have any idea about economics or how a business is structured.
are people in this thread seriously going to stop buying coke because this guys now a director? Enjoy your live without coke because you're too butthurt by call of duty to drink something that is only just slightly associated with it
[QUOTE=Upgrade123;34752751]And this is why Pepsi is always a step ahead.[/QUOTE]
I don't like Coke (and here it's expensive as fuck), but that's a pretty fucking stupid thing to say.
What difference does it make that Kotick's a director now?
[QUOTE=Gareth;34754137]are people in this thread seriously going to stop buying coke because this guys now a director? Enjoy your live without coke because you're too butthurt by call of duty to drink something that is only just slightly associated with it[/QUOTE]
No one in this thread is actually going to do that.
It'd be funny though to see how long it takes them to buy a Coke product they didn't think was Coke. Some people have already stumbled there a few times in this thread.
[editline]18th February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Antdawg;34754188]I don't like Coke (and here it's expensive as fuck), but that's a pretty fucking stupid thing to say.
What difference does it make that Kotick's a director now?[/QUOTE]
Because Kotick! Activision! Call of Duty! Word association!
Next on "Lets run this shit into the ground!": Re-introducing new coke!
[QUOTE=Vasili;34729955][img]http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/2891/793899-kotick3_large.jpg[/img]
the true face of evil[/QUOTE]
Nononono.
THIS is the true face of evil
[IMG]http://www.abload.de/img/bobby_kotick_activisio4rky.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;34749896]
"Poor bad developers, it's not their fault they can't make a unique and compelling game on their own. It's all Activisions fault for releasing an entirely seperate, successful series!"
Give me a break.
I don't want it to catch on, but I'm not going to blame Activision for capitalizing on success. The free market decides what is and isn't successful. If the games weren't fun to play they wouldn't be successful. If people didn't see those DLC map packs and subscription services worth spending money on, no one would buy them. That's how it works.
[/QUOTE]
Don't talk about the Devs that way. It's not that they can't make a good game on their own, it's that it's far more profitable to attempt to exploit the market of bro gamers that Activision created. I'm not putting the blame solely on Activision, mind you. Cevat Yerli (Crytek CEO) publicly admitted to being a whore. I just think we need to recognize who's setting the trends.
Why don't you want it to catch on? Because you don't like being scammed for every cent that you own, right? Because it's unethical. You do raise a good point here though: does the blame go to Activision for succumbing to the temptation to exploit people, or their fanbase for being exploitable?
You talk like fleecing people is good business. It makes a lot of money in the short term, but it is most certainly not good business.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
