Activision digital revenue up to $1.7 billion thanks to over 23 million units of Black Ops, over 18 - Polidicks

Call of Duty are probably the most easily accessable and enjoyable games, ever. There is really no learning curve, you don't have to communicate or barely think. One may believe it's the marketing that is making Call of Duty sell so well but I don't believe so. I believe it's simply players telling their friends about the game. Really, almost every casual gamer likes Call of Duty. And these are the social type of gamers, so it spreads very well among their friend cycles.

[QUOTE=Billiam;32063073] Production is still vastly less expensive than something along the lines of a Hollywood Movie and major titles often leave movies in the dust in terms of revenue. [/QUOTE] but films are becoming more expensive as well to watch, the whole dollar itself is deprecating. i don't see how we can look at this from an economic standpoint when it's very clear it's just meowing about people buying things you don't like.

[QUOTE=thisispain;32063056]don't tell me you want to pretend that having successful games that earn a lot of money don't result in more investment and capital pumped into gaming?[/QUOTE] Activision's mainstay has brought in kajillions and is still running on the same engine and shows no features that indicate an extreme spike in production value.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;32063086]Here's an idea: How about we blame the development studios pumping out shitty CoD clones, instead of getting mad at a company who's only crime is releasing a successful product to a large market of hungry fans.[/QUOTE] Do those CoD clones even sell well? A lot of them kind of just fade into history. That can't be something that's financially successful. Regardless I'm not concerned about a lack of innovation as there's plenty of new and exciting games coming out from my favourite developers. I also don't get why anybody cares if people don't want the same things from their games as you might. Also, Steam seems to be doing a lot of good to small development studios. I'm not worried about innovation, and I think the COD hate bandwagon has been around way too long. It's not the worst game in the world, but it might not be to your taste. So play other games and let COD players play theirs.

[QUOTE=thisispain;32063056]don't tell me you want to pretend that having successful games that earn a lot of money don't result in more investment and capital pumped into gaming? to suggest i'm somehow putting kotick's balls in my mouth is a dumb personal attack that makes it appear i'm speaking to a 13 year old who thinks gay sex is funny.[/QUOTE] I'm done talking with you, you're only argument is assuming Koticks going to hand out money to other competing companies to make better games or some shit. "It's not bad for the industry because money" It's good financially but when it comes to gaming there's more than just the finances. And it's not a gay sex joke you thick idiot, it's saying you're just waiting to be the try-hard white knight you usually play. So much so you're defending Activision and calling MW original.

[QUOTE=Billiam;32063168]Activision's mainstay has brought in kajillions and is still running on the same engine and shows no features that indicate an extreme spike in production value.[/QUOTE] the estimated cost for black ops's production was 18-28 million dollars with a much large estimated marketing budget. MW2 supposedly cost 40-50 million dollars to develop and cost 200 million to market. [editline]1st September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=HawkeyeTy;32063229]I'm done talking with you, you're only argument is assuming Koticks going to hand out money to other competing companies to make better games or some shit. "It's not bad for the industry because money" It's good financially but when it comes to gaming there's more than just the finances. And it's not a gay sex joke you thick idiot, it's saying you're just waiting to be the try-hard white knight you usually play.[/QUOTE] you utterly fail to understand my point, and are acting out like a baby by insulting me. i don't recall defending kotick at any point so it's not even called for. i don't have to respond to your posts so don't outstay your welcome.

[QUOTE=AMD 32;32063195]Do those CoD clones even sell well? A lot of them kind of just fade into history. That can't be something that's financially successful. Regardless I'm not concerned about a lack of innovation as there's plenty of new and exciting games coming out from my favourite developers. I also don't get why anybody cares if people don't want the same things from their games as you might. Also, Steam seems to be doing a lot of good to small development studios. I'm not worried about innovation, and I think the COD hate bandwagon has been around way too long. It's not the worst game in the world, but it might not be to your taste. So play other games and let COD players play theirs.[/QUOTE] No the CoD clones don't sell well. And that's because they're targeting the wrong gamers. Casual gamers will stick with Call of Duty and Halo. They don't look into games that are coming out unless it's something they know about. Casual gamers don't play Crysis 2, Medal of Honor and so forth. I guess Battlefield 3 may turn out to be a hit seller because it's familiar even to casual gamers. But when the developers take old game series and dumb them down to appeal to a more casual crowd they're doing it wrong, because the casuals will not buy it, the fans will, and they won't enjoy it.

[QUOTE=HawkeyeTy;32063229]I'm done talking with you, you're only argument is assuming Koticks going to hand out money to other competing companies to make better games or some shit. "It's not bad for the industry because money" It's good financially but when it comes to gaming there's more than just the finances. And it's not a gay sex joke you thick idiot, it's saying you're just waiting to be the try-hard white knight you usually play. So much so you're defending Koticks proverbial rape of the gaming industry.[/QUOTE] I dunno, I think "Get Kotick's balls out of your mouth already" is a pretty childish retort. But what would internet arguments be without them.

[QUOTE=thisispain;32063155]but films are becoming more expensive as well to watch, the whole dollar itself is deprecating. i don't see how we can look at this from an economic standpoint when it's very clear it's just meowing about people buying things you don't like.[/QUOTE] I'm no fan of the series, but I haven't said anything that indicates that's my line of reasoning. If you prefer we could use Mass Effect as an example, or really any game that pumps out a lot of DLC. Even with a depreciating dollar, the profits are still outstanding and the videogame industry is making more sales than ever; not cutting out missions will not stop a good game from being a success.

[QUOTE=Billiam;32063289] Even with a depreciating dollar, the profits are still outstanding and the videogame industry is making more sales than ever; not cutting out missions will not stop a good game from being a success.[/QUOTE] well if your only complaint is not enough missions then i don't think anyone will disagree with you especially not fans of the series.

[QUOTE=AMD 32;32063279]I dunno, I think "Get Kotick's balls out of your mouth already" is a pretty childish retort. But what would internet arguments be without them.[/QUOTE] Yes it's childish, but it's a brown-noser, "teachers pet" kind of joke. Not the anti-homosex kind.

[QUOTE=thisispain;32063238]the estimated cost for black ops's production was 18-28 million dollars with a much large estimated marketing budget. MW2 supposedly cost 40-50 million dollars to develop and cost 200 million to market.[/QUOTE] That's telling me that they decreased in production cost between titles. [editline]1st September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;32063334]well if your only complaint is not enough missions then i don't think anyone will disagree with you especially not fans of the series.[/QUOTE] I was talking about Mass Effect 2 and things like the Shadow Broker and Kasumi then :saddowns: And it was just an example.

[QUOTE=HawkeyeTy;32063335]Yes it's childish, but it's a brown-noser, "teachers pet" kind of joke. Not the anti-homosex kind.[/QUOTE] there's no benefit for me to defend any gaming company so it's not even a valid insult. i'd defend any company who doesn't engage in abhorrent practices and having high priced DLC isn't very abhorrent.

"i dont like this game nobody should buy it"

[QUOTE=Billiam;32063348]That's telling me that they decreased in production cost between titles. [editline]1st September 2011[/editline] I was talking about Mass Effect 2 and things like the Shadow Broker and Kasumi then :saddowns: And it was just an example.[/QUOTE] I think they just didn't wanna risk putting too much money in something 'new', Black Ops with the whole new characters and theme. MW1 was already a hit so no doubt MW2 would be.

I didn't think black ops was a particularly [b]bad[/b] game, it just wasn't really worth all of the credit it got. It's a bit like most big brands really, everyone loves it even though it's not really much better than the other stuff available.

[QUOTE=ChaosUnleash;32063420]I didn't think black ops was a particularly [b]bad[/b] game, it just wasn't really worth all of the credit it got. It's a bit like most big brands really, everyone loves it even though it's not really much better than the other stuff available.[/QUOTE]I thought Eurogamer's review was quite fair [url]http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-11-08-call-of-duty-black-ops-review[/url]

TBH I think bandwagoners are far worse than the game and its DLC-centric revenue generation. If it was so terrible it wouldn't be selling, so just shut the fuck up and let people enjoy their games, even if better games exist.

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;32063401]I think they just didn't wanna risk putting too much money in something 'new', Black Ops with the whole new characters and theme. MW1 was already a hit so no doubt MW2 would be.[/QUOTE] I'd don't think Activision is that naive.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;32063515]TBH I think bandwagoners are far worse than the game and its DLC-centric revenue generation. If it was so terrible it wouldn't be selling, so just shut the fuck up and let people enjoy their games, even if better games exist.[/QUOTE] Lets all just shut the fuck up and never talk about it on a forum.

[QUOTE=HawkeyeTy;32062655]No, it's reasonable to say fuck Activision because as far as being the top dop in video games they have horrible business practices, repetitive terrible games and top dogs ALWAYS set the standards that many want to follow. It's absolutely reasonable to not like people shelling out massive amounts of cash for this repetitive shit, it's the start of something that could be terrible for the gaming industry, as far as actual games, and gameplay go.[/QUOTE] I feel like I heard this same argument about the Rock Band/Guitar Hero explosion of games, and guess what happened? The market seemed to get tired of them, and so developers shifted their focus away. No matter how angry you want to get about the current state of the industry, it's not ever going to be some permanent position, the market changes, people's interests change, and the industry that provides the products are going to change with it. If the market gets tired of CoD, which it probably will soon enough, the focus will shift again.

Heh, my two posts on the front page got almost 40 dumbs and not a single retort. No one wants to step up and explain to us why a product that sells well is therefore not considered a good product?

activision never scared me as much as EA does, and blizz is just an awsome company, this rly doesnt shock me in any way

[QUOTE]Heh, my two posts on the front page got almost 40 dumbs and not a single retort. No one wants to step up and explain to us why a product that sells well is therefore not considered a good product? [/QUOTE] Bandwagoners, my friend Quoted the wrong thing earlier, whoops

[QUOTE=Raidyr;32064033]Heh, my two posts on the front page got almost 40 dumbs and not a single retort. No one wants to step up and explain to us why a product that sells well is therefore not considered a good product?[/QUOTE] Sales and quality are two independent things. Something that gets a massive amount of hype and build up could easily end up being a shoddy product, but will sell well out of the gate. When it comes to things like video games though, quality is almost always subjective, with certain exceptions. CoD is a game that appeals to a certain crowd, but there's another crowd that plays to the tune of "It doesn't appeal to me so it must be shit". People cry that it's repetitive, but look at Nintendo's games. They follow the same basic philosophy as Activision: If it works, don't fuck with the formula. If it sells, make more of it. Everyone gets angry at Activision, and yea, they aren't a very good company when it comes to the relationship with their customers, but you can't argue with their drive to make a profit. [editline]1st September 2011[/editline] Obviously though, the hardware side of Nintendo has been more creative, but the style of game was more of what I was referring to, in case there is any confusion.

I honestly felt sick when I first saw those charts. It makes me sad that they can sell such a product and make so much money. It just shows that there will be at least 5 more CoD's after MW3.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;32064033]Heh, my two posts on the front page got almost 40 dumbs and not a single retort. No one wants to step up and explain to us why a product that sells well is therefore not considered a good product?[/QUOTE] People are interpreting your post's definition of a "good product" as a product of excellent quality (and if that were the case I would disagree as well), however you were actually referring to the intrinsic properties of any good product in any marketplace?

[QUOTE=Tigster;32064139]Sales and quality are two independent things. Something that gets a massive amount of hype and build up could easily end up being a shoddy product, but will sell well out of the gate. When it comes to things like video games though, quality is almost always subjective, with certain exceptions. CoD is a game that appeals to a certain crowd, but there's another crowd that plays to the tune of "It doesn't appeal to me so it must be shit". People cry that it's repetitive, but look at Nintendo's games. They follow the same basic philosophy as Activision: If it works, don't fuck with the formula. If it sells, make more of it. Everyone gets angry at Activision, and yea, they aren't a very good company when it comes to the relationship with their customers, but you can't argue with their drive to make a profit. [editline]1st September 2011[/editline] Obviously though, the hardware side of Nintendo has been more creative, but the style of game was more of what I was referring to, in case there is any confusion.[/QUOTE] I can see plenty of reasons why someone wouldn't like a Call of Duty game. That's why I didn't outright say it was a good or great game. However, there are no subjective feelings about the marketing successes of sales and profit, only objective fact. If you can't admit that Call of Duty games are good products then that simply means you don't understand basic economics. How you feel about the game is up to you, but you can't say a game that drives billions of dollars and millions of units is not good. [editline]1st September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Billiam;32064277]People are interpreting your post's definition of a "good product" as a product of excellent quality (and if that were the case I would disagree as well), however you were actually referring to the intrinsic properties of any good product in any marketplace?[/QUOTE] Or, this.

[QUOTE=thisispain;32062717]most people like the standards as set forth by activision as is obvious by the sales of their games. i don't believe the many should be terrorized by the few as traitors of the gaming industry as you obviously suggest they should be.[/QUOTE] It's only natural that the fans of the original games feel betrayed that Activision took the series in a disagreeable direction.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;32064283]I can see plenty of reasons why someone wouldn't like a Call of Duty game. That's why I didn't outright say it was a good or great game. However, there are no subjective feelings about the marketing successes of sales and profit, only objective fact. If you can't admit that Call of Duty games are good products then that simply means you don't understand basic economics. How you feel about the game is up to you, but you can't say a game that drives billions of dollars and millions of units is not good.[/QUOTE] I was more on your side, so I don't know why you're trying to disagree with me. I'm saying quality and sales are independent, and I stated why pretty clearly, so I don't understand why you're trying to take a jab at my understanding of economics, when that's exactly what I was getting at. Activision is a business, their goal is to make money, so they stick with a philosophy and a product that sells. Quality of the product is entirely up to the opinion of the consumer, as one person may find the product good, another may not. I'll restate this so you don't ignore it again: how 'good' a product is, is subjective when we're talking about video games. We're not talking about something like chairs, where it clearly isn't a good chair if it falls apart when you sit in it. A game is good when you enjoy it. Does Activision make good games? I personally find them okay. They aren't great, but they are okay. Are they financially successful? Recently, yes. Are they going to change their business strategy? Probably not any time soon. Digging into new territory is a big risk when it comes to things like this, where massive investment can lead to a sizable net loss.